ObjectiveFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second most prevalent dementia in young patients and is characterized by the presence of two main protein aggregates in the brain, tau (FTLD‐Tau) or TDP43 (FTLD‐TDP), which likely require distinct pharmacological therapy. However, specific diagnosis of FTLD and its subtypes remains challenging due to largely overlapping clinical phenotypes. Here, we aimed to assess the clinical performance of novel cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for discrimination of FTLD and its pathological subtypes.Methods YKL40, FABP4, MFG‐E8, and the activities of catalase and specific lysosomal enzymes were analyzed in patients with FTLD‐TDP (n = 30), FTLD‐Tau (n = 20), AD (n = 30), DLB (n = 29), and nondemented controls (n = 29) obtained from two different centers. Models were validated in an independent CSF cohort (n = 188).Results YKL40 and catalase activity were increased in FTLD‐TDP cases compared to controls. YKL40 levels were also higher in FTLD‐TDP compared to FTLD‐Tau. We identified biomarker models able to discriminate FTLD from nondemented controls (MFG‐E8, tTau, and Aβ 42; 78% sensitivity and 83% specificity) and non‐FTLD dementia (YKL40, pTau, p/tTau ratio, and age; 90% sensitivity, 78% specificity), which were validated in an independent cohort. In addition, we identified a biomarker model differentiating FTLD‐TDP from FTLD‐Tau (YKL40, MFGE‐8, βHexA together with βHexA/tHex and p/tTau ratios and age) with 80% sensitivity and 82% specificity.InterpretationThis study identifies CSF protein signatures distinguishing FTLD and the two main pathological subtypes with optimal accuracy (specificity/sensitivity > 80%). Validation of these models may allow appropriate selection of cases for clinical trials targeting the accumulation of Tau or TDP43, thereby increasing their efficiency and facilitating the development of successful therapies.
ObjectiveTo investigate whether p-tau T217 assay in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can distinguish Alzheimer’s disease from other dementias and healthy controls.MethodsWe developed and validated a novel Simoa immunoassay to detect p-tau T217 in CSF. There was a total of 190 participants from three cohorts with AD (n = 77) and other neurodegenerative diseases (n = 69) as well as healthy subjects (n = 44).ResultsThe p-tau T217 assay (cut-off 242 pg/ml) identified AD subjects with accuracy of 90%, with 78% positive predictive value (PPV), 97% negative predictive value (NPV), 93% sensitivity, 88% specificity compared favorably with p-tau T181 ELISA (52 pg/ml) showing 78% accuracy, 58% PPV, 98% NPV, 71% specificity, 97% sensitivity. The assay distinguished AD patients from age-matched healthy subjects (cut-off 163 pg/ml, sensitivity 98%, specificity 93%) similarly to p-tau T181 ELISA (cut-off 60 pg/ml, 96% sensitivity and 86% specificity). In AD patients, we found a strong correlation between p-tau T217-tau and p-tau T181, t-tau and Aβ40 but not with Aβ42.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that p-tau T217 displayed better diagnostic accuracy than p-tau T181. The data suggests that the new p-tau T217 assay has a potential as an AD diagnostic test in the clinical evaluation.Classification of Evidence:This study provides Class III evidence that a CSF immunoassay for p-tau T217 distinguishes AD from other dementias and healthy controls.
Background:The differential diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is still a challenging task due to its symptomatic overlap with other neurological diseases and the lack of biofluid-based biomarkers.Objective: To investigate the diagnostic potential of a combination of novel biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood. Methods:We included 135 patients from the Centre for Memory Disturbances, University of Perugia, with the diagnoses FTD (n = 37), mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI-AD, n = 47), Lewy body dementia (PDD/DLB, n = 22), and cognitively unimpaired patients as controls (OND, n = 29). Biomarker levels of neuronal pentraxin-2 (NPTX2), neuronal pentraxin receptor, neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were measured in CSF, as well as NfL and GFAP in serum. We assessed biomarker differences by analysis of covariance and generalized linear models (GLM). We performed receiver operating characteristics analyses and Spearman correlation to determine biomarker associations.
Background Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed. Methods We validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes. Results Overall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively. Conclusion We conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.