Aline Dorey1, Yannick Tholance2, Alain Vighetto3, Armand Perret-Liaudet4, Ingolf Lachman5, Pierre Krolak-Salmon6, Uta Wagner5, Hanne Struyfs7, Peter P De Deyn8, Benaissa El-Moualij9, Willy Zorzi9, David Meyronet10, Nathalie Streichenberger11, Sebastiaan Engelborghs7, Gabor G Kovacs12, Isabelle Quadrio4. 1. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon 1 University, Hôpital des Charpennes, Center for Memory Resources and Research, Villeurbanne, France2Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Department of Biochemistry, Neurochemistry Unit, Lyon, France. 2. Lyon University, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, Lyon, France4Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Limoges Medical School, Limoges, France. 3. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon 1 University, Hôpital Neurologique, Department of Neurology, Bron Cedex, France. 4. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Department of Biochemistry, Neurochemistry Unit, Lyon, France6Lyon 1 University, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, Bron Cedex, France. 5. AJ Roboscreen GmbH, Leipzig, Germany. 6. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon 1 University, Hôpital des Charpennes, Center for Memory Resources and Research, Villeurbanne, France. 7. Reference Center for Biological Markers of Dementia, Laboratory of Neurochemistry and Behavior, Institute Born-Bunge, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 8. Biobank and Laboratory of Neurochemistry and Behavior, Institute Born-Bunge, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 9. Laboratory of Human Histology-CRPP, Institute of Pharmacy-CHU, Liège, Belgium. 10. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, Bron Cedex, France. 11. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon 1 University, Hôpital des Charpennes, Center for Memory Resources and Research, Villeurbanne, France11Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, Bron Cedex, France. 12. Institute of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, and Austrian Reference Center for Human Prion Diseases, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Although typical forms of Alzheimer disease (AD) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) are clinically distinguishable, atypical AD phenotypes may pose a diagnostic challenge. The major biological diagnostic biomarker for identifying CJD, 14-3-3 protein in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), unfortunately lacks specificity when confronting a rapid dementia presentation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relevance of total CSF prion protein (t-PrP) levels in the differential biological diagnosis between atypical AD phenotypes and CJD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study in an autopsy-confirmed cohort of 82 patients was performed to evaluate the relevance of CSF t-PrP to distinguish 30 definite cases of AD from 52 definite cases of CJD. Next, CSF t-PrP concentration was measured in a cohort of 104 patients including 55 patients with probable AD, 26 with probable sporadic CJD, and 23 control patients for whom 14-3-3 protein, total tau, phosphorylated tau 181 (P-tau181), and Aβ1-42 were available. We investigated 46 patients diagnosed as having probable AD who presented atypical phenotypes. A diagnosis strategy was proposed to classify atypical AD phenotypes with suspicion of CJD based on a decision tree combining CSF biomarkers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We determined CSF t-PrP levels for all patients. We calculated the ratio of total tau and P-tau181 and determined the diagnostic accuracy of each biomarker alone or in combination. We calculated the misclassification rate for each biomarker that corresponded to the percentage of patients within the group of atypical AD phenotypes wrongly classified as CJD. RESULTS: In patients with CJD, CSF t-PrP concentrations were decreased compared with control participants and patients with AD. When considering the differential diagnosis of CJD compared with atypical AD phenotypes, CSF t-PrP determination reached 82.1% sensitivity and 91.3% specificity. The misclassification rate of atypical AD phenotypes decreased from 43.5%, obtained when using the CSF 14-3-3 protein determination alone, to only 4.3% when calculating the ratio total tau/(P-tau181 × t-PrP). The proposed classification tree permitted correct classification of 98.4% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For unusual phenotypes of AD, especially cases presenting with a biological ambiguity suggesting CJD, determination of CSF t-PrP levels increased diagnostic accuracy. The use of CSF t-PrP levels may be beneficial in clinical practice in addition to the current classic biomarkers.
IMPORTANCE: Although typical forms of Alzheimer disease (AD) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) are clinically distinguishable, atypical AD phenotypes may pose a diagnostic challenge. The major biological diagnostic biomarker for identifying CJD, 14-3-3 protein in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), unfortunately lacks specificity when confronting a rapid dementia presentation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relevance of total CSF prion protein (t-PrP) levels in the differential biological diagnosis between atypical AD phenotypes and CJD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study in an autopsy-confirmed cohort of 82 patients was performed to evaluate the relevance of CSF t-PrP to distinguish 30 definite cases of AD from 52 definite cases of CJD. Next, CSF t-PrP concentration was measured in a cohort of 104 patients including 55 patients with probable AD, 26 with probable sporadic CJD, and 23 control patients for whom 14-3-3 protein, total tau, phosphorylated tau 181 (P-tau181), and Aβ1-42 were available. We investigated 46 patients diagnosed as having probable AD who presented atypical phenotypes. A diagnosis strategy was proposed to classify atypical AD phenotypes with suspicion of CJD based on a decision tree combining CSF biomarkers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We determined CSF t-PrP levels for all patients. We calculated the ratio of total tau and P-tau181 and determined the diagnostic accuracy of each biomarker alone or in combination. We calculated the misclassification rate for each biomarker that corresponded to the percentage of patients within the group of atypical AD phenotypes wrongly classified as CJD. RESULTS: In patients with CJD, CSF t-PrP concentrations were decreased compared with control participants and patients with AD. When considering the differential diagnosis of CJD compared with atypical AD phenotypes, CSF t-PrP determination reached 82.1% sensitivity and 91.3% specificity. The misclassification rate of atypical AD phenotypes decreased from 43.5%, obtained when using the CSF 14-3-3 protein determination alone, to only 4.3% when calculating the ratio total tau/(P-tau181 × t-PrP). The proposed classification tree permitted correct classification of 98.4% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For unusual phenotypes of AD, especially cases presenting with a biological ambiguity suggesting CJD, determination of CSF t-PrP levels increased diagnostic accuracy. The use of CSF t-PrP levels may be beneficial in clinical practice in addition to the current classic biomarkers.
Authors: Sonia M Vallabh; Chloe K Nobuhara; Franc Llorens; Inga Zerr; Piero Parchi; Sabina Capellari; Eric Kuhn; Jacob Klickstein; Jiri G Safar; Flavia C Nery; Kathryn J Swoboda; Michael D Geschwind; Henrik Zetterberg; Steven E Arnold; Eric Vallabh Minikel; Stuart L Schreiber Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Eric Vallabh Minikel; Eric Kuhn; Alexandra R Cocco; Sonia M Vallabh; Christina R Hartigan; Andrew G Reidenbach; Jiri G Safar; Gregory J Raymond; Michael D McCarthy; Rhonda O'Keefe; Franc Llorens; Inga Zerr; Sabina Capellari; Piero Parchi; Stuart L Schreiber; Steven A Carr Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Anna Villar-Piqué; Matthias Schmitz; Ingolf Lachmann; André Karch; Olga Calero; Christiane Stehmann; Shannon Sarros; Anna Ladogana; Anna Poleggi; Isabel Santana; Isidre Ferrer; Eva Mitrova; Dana Žáková; Maurizio Pocchiari; Inês Baldeiras; Miguel Calero; Steven J Collins; Michael D Geschwind; Raquel Sánchez-Valle; Inga Zerr; Franc Llorens Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: M J Leitão; I Baldeiras; M R Almeida; M H Ribeiro; A C Santos; M Ribeiro; J Tomás; S Rocha; I Santana; C R Oliveira Journal: J Neurol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Franc Llorens; Tomás Barrio; Ângela Correia; Anna Villar-Piqué; Katrin Thüne; Peter Lange; Juan José Badiola; Matthias Schmitz; Ingolf Lachmann; Rosa Bolea; Inga Zerr Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Peter Riederer; Sid E O'Bryant; Marcel M Verbeek; Bruno Dubois; Pieter Jelle Visser; Kurt A Jellinger; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alfredo Ramirez; Lucilla Parnetti; Clifford R Jack; Charlotte E Teunissen; Harald Hampel; Alberto Lleó; Frank Jessen; Lidia Glodzik; Mony J de Leon; Anne M Fagan; José Luis Molinuevo; Willemijn J Jansen; Bengt Winblad; Leslie M Shaw; Ulf Andreasson; Markus Otto; Brit Mollenhauer; Jens Wiltfang; Martin R Turner; Inga Zerr; Ron Handels; Alexander G Thompson; Gunilla Johansson; Natalia Ermann; John Q Trojanowski; Ilker Karaca; Holger Wagner; Patrick Oeckl; Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn; Maria Bjerke; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; H Bea Kuiperij; Lucia Farotti; Yi Li; Brian A Gordon; Stéphane Epelbaum; Stephanie J B Vos; Catharina J M Klijn; William E Van Nostrand; Carolina Minguillon; Matthias Schmitz; Carla Gallo; Andrea Lopez Mato; Florence Thibaut; Simone Lista; Daniel Alcolea; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Johannes Kornhuber Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Peter Hermann; Brian Appleby; Jean-Philippe Brandel; Byron Caughey; Steven Collins; Michael D Geschwind; Alison Green; Stephane Haïk; Gabor G Kovacs; Anna Ladogana; Franc Llorens; Simon Mead; Noriyuki Nishida; Suvankar Pal; Piero Parchi; Maurizio Pocchiari; Katsuya Satoh; Gianluigi Zanusso; Inga Zerr Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 44.182