My presentation, or the study actually, combined many different studies, and we’ve looked at over 3000 patients now in different contexts. And as you said, we looked at a clinical application. So this was, if you were to use this biomarker in a memory clinic setting, you have patients that have symptoms, how does [P-tau-]231 perform? And in this scenario, we concluded that it performed very, very well, the biomarker by itself, performed better to distinguishing someone who’s experiencing Alzheimer’s disease versus someone with a non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia...
My presentation, or the study actually, combined many different studies, and we’ve looked at over 3000 patients now in different contexts. And as you said, we looked at a clinical application. So this was, if you were to use this biomarker in a memory clinic setting, you have patients that have symptoms, how does [P-tau-]231 perform? And in this scenario, we concluded that it performed very, very well, the biomarker by itself, performed better to distinguishing someone who’s experiencing Alzheimer’s disease versus someone with a non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia. And it was a biomarker that could do this by itself and it outperformed the clinical assessment by a specialist.
Now we weren’t able to compare this with 217 in this scenario, so we can’t say which biomarker was the best. And we also did this in several different scenarios. Now the more interesting study from a pathophysiological side is that in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, we see that soluble Aβ, so the CSF version of Aβ, changes. Then you have plaque pathology, which is measured by amyloid PET as its proxy. And in a study with the ALFA+ cohort in Barcelona, we showed that 231 changed with the CSF Aβ, whereas the other biomarkers changed later with the PET biomarkers.
Once you have this PET plaque pathology, or you have clinical symptoms, the biomarkers all performed the same. So we couldn’t say that 231 was any better than any other biomarker, but at this very, very early stage, it was. Now what does this mean for patients and for clinicians right now? Not much. I think you can say that this biomarker is really at the moment explorative and it could have amazing use for therapeutic trials. If you’re trying to recruit people into trials at an extremely early stage, that maybe this is the biomarker to use over the others.
