4.6 Article

Comparison between plasma and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for the early diagnosis and association with survival in prion disease

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323826

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca corrente)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy and the prognostic value of blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests across prion disease subtypes. Methods We used a single-molecule immunoassay to measure tau and neurofilament light chain (NfL) protein levels in the plasma and assessed CSF total(t)-tau, NfL and protein 14-3-3 levels in patients with prion disease (n=336), non-prion rapidly progressive dementias (n=106) and non-neurodegenerative controls (n=37). We then evaluated each plasma and CSF marker for diagnosis and their association with survival, taking into account the disease subtype, which is a strong independent prognostic factor in prion disease. Results Plasma tau and NfL concentrations were higher in patients with prion disease than in non-neurodegenerative controls and non-prion rapidly progressive dementias. Plasma tau showed higher diagnostic value than plasma NfL, but a lower accuracy than the CSF proteins t-tau and 14-3-3. In the whole prion cohort, both plasma (tau and NfL) and CSF (t-tau, 14-3-3 and NfL) markers were significantly associated with survival and showed similar prognostic values. However, the intrasubtype analysis revealed that only CSF t-tau in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD) MM(V)1, plasma tau and CSF t-tau in sCJD VV2, and plasma NfL in slowly progressive prion diseases were significantly associated with survival after accounting for covariates. Conclusions Plasma markers have lower diagnostic accuracy than CSF biomarkers. Plasma tau and NfL and CSF t-tau are significantly associated with survival in prion disease in a subtype-specific manner and can be used to improve clinical trial stratification and clinical care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据