Cerebrospinal fluid markers for differential dementia diagnosis in a large memory clinic cohort

Departments of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Alzheimer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.29). 12/2011; 78(1):47-54. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823ed0f0
Source: PubMed


To determine how amyloid β 42 (Aβ42), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) levels in CSF behave in a large cohort of patients with different types of dementia.
Baseline CSF was collected from 512 patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and 272 patients with other types of dementia (OD), 135 patients with a psychiatric disorder (PSY), and 275 patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC). Aβ42, t-tau, and p-tau (at amino acid 181) were measured in CSF by ELISA. Autopsy was obtained in a subgroup of 17 patients.
A correct classification of patients with AD (92%) and patients with OD (66%) was accomplished when CSF Aβ42 and p-tau were combined. Patients with progressive supranuclear palsy had normal CSF biomarker values in 90%. Patients with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease demonstrated an extremely high CSF t-tau at a relatively normal CSF p-tau. CSF AD biomarker profile was seen in 47% of patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), 38% in corticobasal degeneration (CBD), and almost 30% in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and vascular dementia (VaD). PSY and SMC patients had normal CSF biomarkers in 91% and 88%. Older patients are more likely to have a CSF AD profile. Concordance between clinical and neuropathologic diagnosis was 85%. CSF markers reflected neuropathology in 94%.
CSF Aβ42, t-tau, and p-tau are useful in differential dementia diagnosis. However, in DLB, FTLD, VaD, and CBD, a substantial group exhibit a CSF AD biomarker profile, which requires more autopsy confirmation in the future.

Download full-text


Available from: Peter Van de Ven, Feb 05, 2014
    • "The existing clinical accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity of the markers, remains relatively low [40]. CSF levels of the A, total Tau, and phosphorylated Tau (pTau) in AD subjects are measured as potential diagnostic biomarkers [40] [41] [42] [43]. Although these CSF markers enable categorization of the patients as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD [43], they could only be established naturally by utilizing neuropsychological testing followed by biomarker evaluation and not vice versa. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Preclinical studies are essential for translation to disease treatments and effective use in clinical practice. An undue emphasis on single approaches to Alzheimer's disease (AD) appears to have retarded the pace of translation in the field, and there is much frustration in the public about the lack of an effective treatment. We critically reviewed past literature (1990-2014), analyzed numerous data, and discussed key issues at a consensus conference on Brain Ageing and Dementia to identify and overcome roadblocks in studies intended for translation. We highlight various factors that influence the translation of preclinical research and highlight specific preclinical strategies that have failed to demonstrate efficacy in clinical trials. The field has been hindered by the domination of the amyloid hypothesis in AD pathogenesis while the causative pathways in disease pathology are widely considered to be multifactorial. Understanding the causative events and mechanisms in the pathogenesis are equally important for translation. Greater efforts are necessary to fill in the gaps and overcome a variety of confounds in the generation, study design, testing, and evaluation of animal models and the application to future novel anti-dementia drug trials. A greater variety of potential disease mechanisms must be entertained to enhance progress.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2015 · Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD
  • Source
    • "Different biomarkers probably reflect different aspects of the pathological process and may therefore not be congruent especially early in the course of the disease [9] [31]. Sensitivity and specificity as measures of diagnostic accuracy probably differ between biomarkers with higher rates for amyloid targeting PET compared to CSF biomarkers in autopsy confirmed cases [34] [35] [36]. However, the design of this study does not allow addressing the question of diagnostic accuracy since no gold standard in terms of neuropathological verification was available. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Biomarkers of neuronal injury and amyloid pathology play a pivotal role in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The degree of AD biomarker congruence is still unclear in clinical practice. Objective: Diagnosis of AD with regard to the congruence of the clinical diagnosis and different biomarkers. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional observational study, 54 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD or not due to AD were investigated. Biomarkers of neuronal injury were medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and tau concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). CSF Aβ1-42 and amyloid-targeting positron emission tomography (PET) were considered as biomarkers of amyloid pathology. Results: Forty cases were diagnosed as AD and 14 cases were diagnosed as non-AD based on clinical and routine MRI assessment. AD cases had higher MTA scores, higher levels of CSF tau and lower levels of CSF Aβ1 - 42, and higher amyloid load on PET compared to the non-AD group. In the AD group, completely consistently pathological biomarkers were found in 32.5% , non-pathological in 5% . In 62.5% the findings were inconsistent. Congruence of biomarkers was 67.5% for neuronal injury and for amyloid dysfunction, respectively. In two patients, clinical diagnosis switched to non-AD due to completely consistent non-pathological biomarker findings. The criteria of the international working group were met in 75.0% . Conclusion: Surprisingly, the number of completely congruent biomarkers was relatively low. Interpretation of AD biomarkers is complicated by multiple biomarker constellations. However, the level of biomarker consistency required to reliably diagnose AD remains uncertain.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD
  • Source
    • "Although there have been several possible cut-off values proposed [5, 20–22], there is a lack of agreement on cut-off thresholds due to the variability in CSF measurements between laboratories [23] and across techniques [24]. Combining CSF biomarkers into a single score has been shown to better discriminate between patients with an AD diagnosis compared with healthy controls than an individual biomarker [16] [23] [25] [28]. Examples include the Innotest Amyloid-Tau Index (IATI) defined by the ratio A␤ 1-42 /(240+1.18 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers can distinguish Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients from normal controls; however, their interpretation and potential for use in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. Objective: To examine whether biomarker levels allow for risk stratification among MCI patients who are at increased risk to develop AD, thus allowing for improved targeting of early interventions for those whose risk are higher. Methods: We analyzed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative on MCI patients (n = 195) to estimate their risk of developing AD for up to 6 years on the basis of baseline CSF biomarkers. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis to identify the best combination of biomarkers to discriminate those who converted to AD from those who remained stable. We used these data to construct a multi-biomarker score and estimated the risk of progression to AD for each quintile of the multi-biomarker score. Results: We found that Aβ 1-42 and P-tau181p were the best combination among CSF biomarkers to predict the overall risk of developing AD among MCI patients (area under the curve = 0.77). The hazard ratio of developing AD among MCI patients with high-risk (3rd–5th quintiles) biomarker levels was about 4 times greater than MCI patients with low-risk (1st quintile) levels (95% confidence interval, 1.93–7.26). Conclusion: Our study identifies MCI patients at increased risk of developing AD by applying a multi-biomarker score using CSF biomarker results. Our findings may be of value to MCI patients and their clinicians for planning purposes and early intervention as well as for future clinical trials.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD
Show more