OBJECTIVE: To clarify the olfactory deficit hypothesis regarding Alzheimer's disease, the authors compared olfactory function in patients with Alzheimer's disease, subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and healthy comparison subjects. METHOD: Olfactory function of 14 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease, eight subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and eight healthy age-matched comparison subjects was assessed with both psychophysical tests and olfactory event-related potentials. RESULTS: Group comparison of the psychophysical test results showed a significant main effect of diagnosis for odor detection threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. These results correlated only partially with those obtained from olfactory event-related potentials. Seven Alzheimer's disease patients and four with mild cognitive impairment showed no olfactory event-related potentials, suggesting hyposmia, while all comparison subjects had clearly discernible responses. Patients with Alzheimer's disease were significantly more likely to be nonresponders. In the four Alzheimer's disease patients and four subjects with mild cognitive impairment who had clear electrophysiological responses, amplitudes and latencies of the various event-related potential components were normal, i.e., similar to those of the comparison subjects, although 12 of the 14 Alzheimer's disease patients and seven of the eight mildly impaired subjects were classified as functionally anosmic with psychophysical methods. CONCLUSIONS: The electrophysiological results confirm prior findings of olfactory dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer's disease and preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Investigations of larger study groups with detailed cognitive examination and postmortem diagnosis may resolve the intriguing possibility of early diagnosis and discrimination of Alzheimer's disease subtypes through chemosensory event-related potentials in addition to existing biomarkers.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the olfactory deficit hypothesis regarding Alzheimer's disease, the authors compared olfactory function in patients with Alzheimer's disease, subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and healthy comparison subjects. METHOD: Olfactory function of 14 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease, eight subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and eight healthy age-matched comparison subjects was assessed with both psychophysical tests and olfactory event-related potentials. RESULTS: Group comparison of the psychophysical test results showed a significant main effect of diagnosis for odor detection threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. These results correlated only partially with those obtained from olfactory event-related potentials. Seven Alzheimer's diseasepatients and four with mild cognitive impairment showed no olfactory event-related potentials, suggesting hyposmia, while all comparison subjects had clearly discernible responses. Patients with Alzheimer's disease were significantly more likely to be nonresponders. In the four Alzheimer's diseasepatients and four subjects with mild cognitive impairment who had clear electrophysiological responses, amplitudes and latencies of the various event-related potential components were normal, i.e., similar to those of the comparison subjects, although 12 of the 14 Alzheimer's diseasepatients and seven of the eight mildly impaired subjects were classified as functionally anosmic with psychophysical methods. CONCLUSIONS: The electrophysiological results confirm prior findings of olfactory dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer's disease and preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Investigations of larger study groups with detailed cognitive examination and postmortem diagnosis may resolve the intriguing possibility of early diagnosis and discrimination of Alzheimer's disease subtypes through chemosensory event-related potentials in addition to existing biomarkers.
Authors: Matthew R Woodward; Muhammad Ubaid Hafeez; Qianya Qi; Ahmed Riaz; Ralph H B Benedict; Li Yan; Kinga Szigeti Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Matthew R Woodward; Chaitanya V Amrutkar; Harshit C Shah; Ralph H B Benedict; Sanjanaa Rajakrishnan; Rachelle S Doody; Li Yan; Kinga Szigeti Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2017-02
Authors: Sujuan Gao; James T Nguyen; Hugh C Hendrie; Frederick W Unverzagt; Ann Hake; Valerie Smith-Gamble; Kathleen Hall Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 5.562