Pharmaceutical and biotech researchers convened last week to discuss their latest work on targeting neurodegenerative diseases
With all the news this year alone on progress being made with diagnostic testing for Alzheimer’s disease, clinical laboratory professionals will be interested to know that drug discovery efforts to combat neurogenerative diseases are also at a heightened pitch.
Last week at the one-day Neuroimmunology in Drug Discovery forum in Boston, scientists learned about the latest advances in therapeutic research to better treat Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease. As the treatments advance, demand for them will increase, which goes hand-in-hand with medical lab testing to detect signs of these illnesses.
The concern is urgent. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted that 10% of people age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s disease, and that number could double by 2050. The FDA recently cleared the first in vitro diagnostics device that tests blood to diagnose Alzheimer’s, and other IVD manufacturers and clinical labs are working on other Alzheimer’s tests, Dark Daily reported.
“It’s looking quite promising for NLRP3 inhibitors,” said Cheryl Leyns, PhD, associate principal scientist in discovery neuroscience at Merck Research Laboratories, in discussing how mutations of the NLRP3 protein can lead to neurodegenerative diseases. (Photo copyright: ELRIG.)
Much of the discussion at the Neuroimmunology in Drug Discovery forum centered on the idea that neuroinflammation—in other words, inflammation of the brain or spinal cord—starts well before neurodegenerative diseases arise. Neuroinflammation can accelerate Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders, said Cheryl Leyns, PhD, associate principal scientist, neuroimmunology, at Merck Research Laboratories in Boston, who spoke at the event.
From that perspective, drug discovery researchers are on the prowl for these early signs of future problems.
Leyns discussed NLRP3, a protein that aids the body’s inflammation process. A mutation of NLRP3 can lead to inflammatory problems, making the protein a prime target for researchers. “We have been interested, in the biopharma space, in the potential of NLRP3 inhibitors,” she noted.
Older Immune Systems Are Susceptible
While many in the public correctly associate Alzheimer’s with a person being outwardly older, a lesser-known aspect is that the body’s immune system also ages, becoming more susceptible over time to chronic inflammation.
Wailings’ assertion was not rhetorical. She pointed to numbers which showed scholarly research that involved the terms “inflammation,” “neurodegeneration,” and “aging” was only about 17% of the total amount of journal articles that addressed the first two terms, but which did not include “aging.”
As the pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical fields move aggressively forward to defend people against neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, clinical laboratory scientists should take comfort that diagnostic testing trends are solidly in the mix.
Therapeutic advances, along with increased options for testing, show promising signs that patients and their caregivers will have more tools to use in the battle against these illnesses.
The federal agency says it will mandate randomized, controlled clinical trials for vaccination of younger, healthy individuals
It’s been a confusing past few weeks in terms of what the general public’s access to COVID-19 vaccinations will be like in the future.
Public health experts have been verbally jousting with the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about moves its health officials made recently regarding the vaccines. This could put clinical laboratories on the front lines to help determine whether COVID cases—particularly severe ones—eventually rise as a result.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, who leads the agency’s vaccine oversight, announced on May 20 that the agency will require randomized, controlled clinical trials before approving COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under age 65.
“While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months,” Makary and Prasad wrote in NEJM.
Under the new framework, they noted, the agency expects that it will continue to approve vaccines for adults over 65 as well as younger people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The range of diseases is “vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression,” they wrote. “Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.”
In their NEJM commentary, FDA commissioner Martin Makary, MD (left), and Vinay Prasad, MD (right), wrote, “Moving forward, the FDA will adopt the following COVID-19 vaccination regulatory framework: On the basis of immunogenicity—proof that a vaccine can generate antibody titers in people.” (Photo copyrights: Wikimedia Commons.)
Former CDC APIC Member Pushes Back
The announcement drew criticism from public health and medical experts.
“The FDA guidance presented in the NEJM was not released in the Federal Register, did not invite comment, and provided only a general outline for COVID-19 vaccine licensure,” wrote pediatrician and vaccinologist Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, in a commentary for STAT. Edwards is a former member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccine recommendations to the agency.
On June 9, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he’s removing all 17 current members of ACIP.
“The FDA mandate is to ensure safe and effective vaccines based on the clinical studies performed, but not to develop specific recommendations for their use,” Edwards added. “Providing recommendations on vaccine use for the civilian population is the mandate of the ACIP.”
Edwards contended that extensive data is already available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. She stated that “there is no precedent for mandating continued placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials for vaccines that have already been licensed.”
New Policy Announcement Raises Questions
The New York Times notes that many questions remain about the specifics of the new policy and how broadly the vaccines will be available.
A likely scenario, the paper reported, is that health insurers will play a role as “gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.” Without insurance coverage, people would likely pay approximately $140 per shot out of pocket.
This stands in contrast to European countries, where outreach campaigns target specific populations based on public health recommendations. according to Forbes. However, “in virtually all instances, COVID-19 vaccines can be gotten free of charge across Europe regardless of health or age status,” the article notes.
In their NEJM commentary, Prasad and Makary noted that adoption of the annual COVID-19 booster shot is already low. The CDC reported that 23% of Americans 18 and older received vaccinations in the 2024-2025 season, up slightly from 21.6% in 2023-2024.
Kennedy Steps In
On May 27, Kennedy announced in a video on X that the CDC would remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Previously, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everyone ages six months and older.
Kennedy was joined in the video by Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD.
However, CDC staffers were “blindsided” by the announcement, NPR reported, citing an agency official who requested anonymity.
“Hours after the post on X, CDC staffers received a directive from Secretary Kennedy—dated May 19, but sent May 27—rescinding the department’s 2022 acceptance of the CDC’s recommendations for the use of COVID shots in children and during pregnancy,” NPR reported.
It now appears that HHS has at least partially backtracked on Kennedy’s announcement.
The CDC’s immunization schedule now states that vaccination of healthy children should be a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” between the doctor and parent or patient.
“After confusing, mixed messages from leaders at HHS earlier this week, we are relieved to see today that the CDC updated its schedules for child and adolescent immunizations to allow families to maintain the choice to immunize their children against COVID in consultation with their doctor,” American Academy of Pediatrics president Susan Kressly said in a statement from the organization.
In a June 1 interview with the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Makary confirmed that the recommendation to vaccinate “should be with the patient and their doctor.”
However, he also criticized ACIP as a “kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.”
Anatomic pathologists understand that, along with breast cancer, diagnostic testing for prostate cancer accounts for a high volume of clinical laboratory tests. Thus, a recent study indicating that a new artificial intelligence (AI)-based software tool can dramatically improve physicians’ ability to identify the extent of these cancers will be of interest.
“The study found that Unfold AI’s patient-specific encapsulation confidence score (ECS), which is generated based on multiple patient data points, including MRI scans, biopsy results, PSA [prostate-specific antigen] data, and Gleason scores, is critical for predicting treatment success,” an Avenda press release states. “These findings emphasize the importance of Unfold AI’s assessment of tumor margins in predicting treatment outcomes, surpassing the predictive capability of conventional parameters.”
“Unfold AI’s ability to identify tumor margins and provide the ECS will improve treatment recommendations and allow for less-invasive interventions,” said study co-author Wayne Brisbane, MD, a urologic oncologist and UCLA medical professor, in another press release. “This more comprehensive approach enhances our ability to predict treatment outcomes and tailor interventions effectively to individual patient needs.”
“This study is important because it shows the ability of AI to not only replicate expert physicians, but to go beyond human ability,” said study co-author Wayne Brisbane, MD (above), a urologic oncologist and UCLA medical professor, in a press release. “By increasing the accuracy of cancer identification in the prostate, more precise and effective treatment methods can be prescribed for patients.” Clinical laboratories that work with anatomic pathologists to diagnose prostate and other cancers may soon have a new AI testing tool. (Photo copyright: UCLA.)
How Unfold AI Works
To gauge the extent of prostate tumors, surgeons typically evaluate results from multiple diagnostic methods such as PSA tests and imaging scans such as MRIs, according to a UCLA press release. However some portions of a tumor may be invisible to an MRI, causing doctors to underestimate the size.
Unfold AI, originally known as iQuest, was designed to analyze data from PSA, MRI, fusion biopsy, and pathology testing, according to a company brochure. From there, it generates a 3D map of the cancer. Avenda’s website says the technology provides a more accurate representation of the tumor’s extent than conventional methods.
“Accurately determining the extent of prostate cancer is crucial for treatment planning, as different stages may require different approaches such as active surveillance, surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these treatments,” Brisbane said in the UCLA press release.
Putting AI to the Test
In the new study, the UCLA researchers enlisted seven urologists and three radiologists to review 50 prostate cancer cases. Each patient had undergone prostatectomy—surgical removal of all or part of the prostate—but might have been eligible for focal therapy, a less-aggressive approach that uses heat, cryotherapy, or electric shocks to attack cancer cells more selectively.
The physicians came from five hospitals and had a wide range of clinical experience from two to 23 years, the researchers noted in The Journal of Urology.
They reviewed clinical data and examined MRI scans of each patient, then “manually drew outlines around the suspected cancerous areas, aiming to encapsulate all significant disease,” the press release states. “Then, after waiting for at least four weeks, they reexamined the same cases, this time using AI software to assist them in identifying the cancerous areas.”
The researchers analyzed the physicians’ work, evaluating the accuracy of the cancer margins and the “negative margin rate,” indicating whether the clinicians had identified all of the cancerous tissue. Using conventional approaches, “doctors only achieved a negative margin 1.6% of the time,” the press release states. “When assisted by AI the number increased to 72.8%.”
The clinicians’ accuracy was 84.7% when assisted by AI versus 67.2% to 75.9% for conventional techniques.
They also found that clinicians who used the AI software were more likely to recommend focal therapy over more aggressive forms of treatment.
“We saw the use of AI assistance made doctors both more accurate and more consistent, meaning doctors tended to agree more when using AI assistance,” said Avenda Health co-founder and CEO Shyam Natarajan, PhD, who was senior author of the study.
“These results demonstrate a marked change in how physicians will be able to diagnose and recommend treatment for prostate cancer patients,” said Natarajan in a company press release. “By increasing the confidence in which we can predict a tumor’s margins, patients and their doctors will have increased certainty that their entire tumor is treated and with the appropriate intervention in correlation to the severity of their case.”
UCLA’s study found that AI can outperform doctors both in sensitivity (a higher detection rate of positive cancers) and specificity (correctly detecting the sample as negative). That’s relevant and worth watching for further developments.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should consider this use of AI as one more example of how artificial intelligence can be incorporated into diagnostic tests in ways that allow medical laboratory professionals to diagnose disease earlier and more accurately. This will improve patient care because early intervention for most diseases leads to better outcomes.
Clinical laboratory executives and pathology leaders may want to develop strategies for supporting the growing numbers of at-home screening and diagnostic test users
Findings of a national poll conducted by the University of Michigan (U-M) exploring consumers’ purchases suggests seniors are becoming more comfortable with ordering and using at-home medical testing. Their choice of tests and opinions may be of interest to clinical laboratory executives, pathologists, and primary care physicians considering programs to support self-test purchasers.
The researchers found that 48% of adults, ages 50 to 80, purchased at least one at-home medical test, and that 91% of the buyers indicated intentions to purchase another test in the future, according to a U-M news release.
In their paper, they note that “validity, reliability, and utility of at-home tests is often uncertain.” Further, understanding and responding to test results—especially since caregivers may not have ordered them—could lead to “a range of unintended consequences,” they wrote.
“As a primary care doctor, I would want to know why my patient chose to take an at-home test that I didn’t order for them. We also need to understand in greater detail why folks use at-home tests instead of traditional means, beyond convenience,” said the U-M study’s lead author Joshua Rager, MD, a research scientist at William M. Tierney Center for Health Services Research at Regenstrief Institute, who is now an assistant professor of medicine, Indiana University, in a news release. The findings of the U-M study will be of interest to clinical laboratory executives and pathology leaders. (Photo copyright: Regenstrief Institute.)
Free COVID-19 Tests Ignite At-Home Testing
In their Journal of Health Care paper, the U-M researchers speculate that curiosity in at-home testing may have been propelled by the offer of free COVID-19 tests by the US government starting in 2021 during the pandemic.
They also noted the different ways at-home test kits are performed by healthcare consumers. Some, such as COVID-19 rapid antigen tests, return results to users in a few moments similar to pregnancy tests. Others involve self-collecting specimens, such as a stool sample, then sending the specimen to a clinical laboratory for analysis and results reporting to physicians.
Of those older adults who participated in U-M’s National Poll on Healthy Aging study, the following bought at-home medical tests online or from pharmacies and supermarkets, according to U-M’s paper:
As to perceptions of at-home medical testing by users, when polled on their test experience, the surveyed seniors reported the following:
75.1% perceived at-home medical tests to be more convenient than conventional medical tests.
59.9% believe the tests “can be trusted to give reliable results.”
54.8% believe the tests “are regulated by government.”
66% called them a “good value.”
93.6% indicated results “should be discussed with my doctor.”
Inconsistency in how people shared test results with their healthcare providers was a concern voiced by the researchers.
“While nearly all patients who had bought an at-home cancer screening test shared the results with their primary care provider, only about half of those who tested for an infection other than COVID-19 had. This could have important clinical implications,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
Confusion over Government Regulation
The U-M study also revealed consumer misunderstanding about government regulation of at-home clinical laboratory tests purchased over-the-counter.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared “some diagnostic at-home tests for over-the counter use. But many tests on the market are unregulated or under-regulated,” the authors wrote, adding, “Our results suggest, however, that patients generally believe at-home tests are regulated by government, but a substantial minority did not, which may reflect public confusion in how at-home testing is regulated.”
Women, College-Educated Buy More At-Home Tests
Purchase of at-home tests varies among groups, as follows, the news release noted:
56% and 61% of older adults with a college degree or household income above $100,000, respectively, were “much more likely” to buy at-home tests than people in other income and education brackets.
87% of women would buy at-home tests again compared with 76% of men.
89% of college-educated people would purchase the tests again, compared with 78% of people with high school educations or less.
Future U-M research may explore consumers’ awareness/understanding concerning federal regulations of at-home testing, Rager noted.
“At-home tests could be used to address disparities in access to care. We hope these findings will inform regulators and policymakers and spark future research on this topic,” he said in the news release.
The U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation survey results confirm that the country’s senior generations are becoming comfortable with at-home and self-testing options. As Dark Daily has previously suggested, clinical laboratories may want to develop service offerings and a strategy for supporting patients who want to perform their own lab tests at home.
As new diagnostic assays are cleared by regulators, clinical laboratories will play a key role in identifying appropriate patients for new less-invasive Alzheimer’s tests
With multiple companies racing to develop a blood-based test for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), clinical laboratories may soon have new less-invasive diagnostic assays for AD on their menus.
Why a race? Because a less-invasive clinical laboratory test that uses a venous blood draw (as opposed to a spinal tap)—and which has increased sensitivity/specificity—has a potentially large market given the substantial numbers of elderly predicted to develop Alzheimer’s over the next decade. It has the potential to be a high volume, high dollar diagnostic test.
In fact, Mordor Intelligence estimates that the market for Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics will grow from $7.7 billion in 2024 to $10.10 billion by 2029.
Alzheimers.gov, an official website of the US government, says, “Researchers have made significant progress in developing, testing, and validating biomarkers that detect signs of the disease process. For example, in addition to PET scans that detect abnormal beta-amyloid plaques and tau tangles [abnormal forms of tau protein] in the brain, NIH-supported scientists have developed the first commercial blood test for Alzheimer’s. This test and others in development can not only help support diagnosis but also be used to screen volunteers for research studies.”
Additionally, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is clearing new Alzheimer’s drugs for clinical use. The pharma companies behind these drugs need clinical laboratory tests that accurately diagnosis the disease and confirm that it would be appropriate for the patient to receive the new therapeutic drugs, a key element of precision medicine.
“The big promise for blood tests is that they will eventually be accessible, hopefully, cost-effective, and noninvasive,” Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD (above), Vice President, Scientific Engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, told USA Today. “The field is really moving forward with use of these types of tests,” she added. Clinical laboratories may soon have these new assays on their test menus. (Photo copyright: Alzheimer’s Association.)
Companies in the Race to Develop Blood-based Alzheimer’s Tests
Researchers found that C2N’s blood test can detect brain amyloid status with “sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values that approximate those of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging,” according to a news release.
“The PrecivityAD2 blood test is intended for use in patients aged 55 and older with signs or symptoms of mild cognitive impairment or dementia who are undergoing evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. Only a healthcare provider can order the PrecivityAD2 test,” the news release noted.
“The PrecivityAD2 blood test showed strong clinical validity with excellent agreement with brain amyloidosis by PET,” the researchers wrote.
The PrecivityAD2 test, which is mailed directly by C2N to doctors and researchers, is performed at the company’s CLIA-certified lab, according to USA Today, which added that the cost of $1,450 is generally not covered by insurance plans.
Expanding Test Access with IVD Companies
ALZpath, Inc. has a different approach to the Alzheimer’s disease test market. The Carlsbad, Calif.-based company, set up an agreement with in vitro diagnostics (IVD) company Roche Diagnostics for use of its phosphorylated tau (pTau)217 antibody “to develop and commercialize an Alzheimer’s disease diagnostic blood test that will be offered on the Roche Elecsys platform,” according to a news release.
Roche received FDA breakthrough device designation on the Elecsys pTau217 test earlier this year and will work with pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly to commercialize the test.
Estimates show 75% of dementia cases go undetected—a number which could grow to 140 million by 2050, according to data shared by Roche with Fierce Biotech.
“We plan to leverage our installed base of diagnostic systems, which is the largest in the world, to ensure we are able to create access to this test for those who need it the most,” Matt Sause, CEO, Roche Diagnostics, told Fierce Biotech.
Another IVD company, Beckman Coulter, recently signed an agreement to use ALZpath’s pTau217 antibody test in its DxI 9000 Immunoassay Analyzer. In a news release, Kathleen Orland, SVP and General Manager of the Clinical Chemistry Immunoassay Business Unit at Beckman Coulter, said that the test had “high performance in detecting amyloid pathology” and could “integrate into our advanced DxI 9000 platform to support broad-based testing.”
Clinical Laboratory Participation
The FDA is drafting new guidance titled, “Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment” that is “intended to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment of the stages of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) that occur before the onset of overt dementia.”
Pharma companies intent on launching new drugs for Alzheimer’s will need medical laboratory tests that accurately diagnosis the disease to confirm the medications would be appropriate for specific patients.
Given development of the aforementioned pTau217 antibody tests, and others featuring different diagnostic technologies, it’s likely clinical laboratories will soon be performing new assays for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease.
