4.6 Article

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Individuals with Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the United States of America

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038884

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Richmond Family Foundation for Alzheimer's and Related Diseases
  2. Stempler Dementia Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Little is known about racial and ethnic differences in individuals with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD). The authors sought to examine potential clinical, diagnostic, genetic, and neuropathological differences in sCJD patients of different races/ethnicities. Methodology/Principal Findings: A retrospective study of 116 definite and probable sCJD cases from Johns Hopkins and the Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems was conducted that examined differences in demographic, clinical, diagnostic, genetic, and neuropathological characteristics among racial/ethnic groups. Age at disease onset differed among racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had a significantly older age at disease onset compared to the other groups (65 vs. 60, p = 0.036). Non-Whites were accurately diagnosed more rapidly than Whites (p = 0.008) and non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to have normal appearing basal ganglia on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to minorities (p = 0.02). Whites were also more likely to undergo post-mortem evaluation compared to non-Whites (p = 0.02). Conclusions/Significance: Racial/ethnic groups affected by sCJD demonstrated differences in age at disease onset, time to correct diagnosis, clinical presentation, and diagnostic test results. Whites were more likely to undergo autopsy compared to non-Whites. These results have implications in regards to case ascertainment, diagnosis, and surveillance of sCJD and possibly other human prion diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available