Literature DB >> 31220922

A pilot study of the utility of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain in differentiating neurodegenerative from psychiatric disorders: A 'C-reactive protein' for psychiatrists and neurologists?

Dhamidhu Eratne1,2,3, Samantha M Loi1,2,3, Nirbaanjot Walia3, Sarah Farrand1, Qiao-Xin Li4, Shiji Varghese4, Mark Walterfang1,2,3, Andrew Evans5, Ramon Mocellin6, Kunal Dhiman7, Veer Gupta7,8, Charles B Malpas5,9,10, Steven Collins4,11,12, Colin L Masters4,13, Dennis Velakoulis1,2,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Neurofilament light has shown promise as a biomarker for diagnosis, staging and prognosis in a wide range of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders. This study explored the utility of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light in distinguishing primary psychiatric disorders from neurodegenerative and neurological disorders, a common diagnostic dilemma for psychiatrists and neurologists.
METHODS: This cross-sectional retrospective pilot study assessed cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light on patients referred to a tertiary neuropsychiatry service from 2009 to 2017 for diagnostic assessment of neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive symptoms, where a neurodegenerative disorder was a differential diagnosis, who received lumbar punctures as part of a comprehensive workup. The most recent gold-standard clinical consensus diagnosis was categorised into psychiatric disorder or neurodegenerative or neurological disorder. Data from healthy controls were available for comparison. Data extraction and diagnostic categorisation was blinded to neurofilament light results.
RESULTS: A total of 129 participants were included: 77 neurodegenerative or neurological disorder (mean age 57 years, including Alzheimer's dementia, frontotemporal dementia), 31 psychiatric disorder (mean age 51 years, including schizophrenia, major depressive disorder) and 21 healthy controls (mean age 66 years). Neurofilament light was significantly higher in neurodegenerative or neurological disorder (M = 3560 pg/mL, 95% confidence intervals = [2918, 4601]) compared to psychiatric disorder (M = 949 pg/mL, 95% confidence intervals = [830, 1108]) and controls (M = 1036 pg/mL, 95% confidence intervals = [908, 1165]). Neurofilament light distinguished neurodegenerative or neurological disorder from psychiatric disorder with an area under the curve of 0.94 (95% confidence intervals = [0.89, 0.98]); a cut-off of 1332 pg/mL was associated with 87% sensitivity and 90% specificity.
CONCLUSION: Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light shows promise as a diagnostic test to assist with the often challenging diagnostic dilemma of distinguishing psychiatric disorders from neurodegenerative and neurological disorders. Further studies are warranted to replicate and expand on these findings, including on plasma neurofilament light.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alzheimer; Biomarker; dementia; diagnosis; frontotemporal; neurodegenerative; neurofilament; neurofilament light; psychiatry

Year:  2019        PMID: 31220922     DOI: 10.1177/0004867419857811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Psychiatry        ISSN: 0004-8674            Impact factor:   5.744


  5 in total

1.  Fluid Biomarkers of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration.

Authors:  Emma L van der Ende; John C van Swieten
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 2.  Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia.

Authors:  Bradley F Boeve
Journal:  Continuum (Minneap Minn)       Date:  2022-06-01

3.  Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in Patients With Unipolar Depression Compared With Healthy Control Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ina Viktoria Mousten; Nina Vindegaard Sørensen; Rune Haubo B Christensen; Michael Eriksen Benros
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 25.911

Review 4.  Neurofilaments as Emerging Biomarkers of Neuroaxonal Damage to Differentiate Behavioral Frontotemporal Dementia from Primary Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Vincent Davy; Julien Dumurgier; Aurore Fayosse; Claire Paquet; Emmanuel Cognat
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-22

Review 5.  Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders.

Authors:  Simon Ducharme; Annemiek Dols; Robert Laforce; Emma Devenney; Fiona Kumfor; Jan van den Stock; Caroline Dallaire-Théroux; Harro Seelaar; Flora Gossink; Everard Vijverberg; Edward Huey; Mathieu Vandenbulcke; Mario Masellis; Calvin Trieu; Chiadi Onyike; Paulo Caramelli; Leonardo Cruz de Souza; Alexander Santillo; Maria Landqvist Waldö; Ramon Landin-Romero; Olivier Piguet; Wendy Kelso; Dhamidhu Eratne; Dennis Velakoulis; Manabu Ikeda; David Perry; Peter Pressman; Bradley Boeve; Rik Vandenberghe; Mario Mendez; Carole Azuar; Richard Levy; Isabelle Le Ber; Sandra Baez; Alan Lerner; Ratnavalli Ellajosyula; Florence Pasquier; Daniela Galimberti; Elio Scarpini; John van Swieten; Michael Hornberger; Howard Rosen; John Hodges; Janine Diehl-Schmid; Yolande Pijnenburg
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.501

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.