No abstract

To assess the discriminating power of multiple cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for Parkinson's disease (PD), we measured several proteins playing an important role in the disease pathogenesis. The activities of β-glucocerebrosidase and other lysosomal enzymes, together with total and oligomeric α-synuclein, and total and phosphorylated tau, were thus assessed in CSF of 71 PD patients and compared to 45 neurological controls. Activities of β-glucocerebrosidase, β-mannosidase, β-hexosaminidase, and β-galactosidase were measured with established enzymatic assays, while α-synuclein and tau biomarkers were evaluated with immunoassays. A subset of PD patients (n = 44) was also screened for mutations in the β-glucocerebrosidase-encoding gene (GBA1). In the PD group, β-glucocerebrosidase activity was reduced (P < 0.05) and patients at earlier stages showed lower enzymatic activity (P < 0.05); conversely, β-hexosaminidase activity was significantly increased (P < 0.05). Eight PD patients (18%) presented GBA1 sequence variations; 3 of them were heterozygous for the N370S mutation. Levels of total α-synuclein were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in PD, in contrast to increased levels of α-synuclein oligomers, with a higher oligomeric/total α-synuclein ratio in PD patients when compared with controls (P < 0.001). A combination of β-glucocerebrosidase activity, oligomeric/total α-synuclein ratio, and age gave the best performance in discriminating PD from neurological controls (sensitivity 82%; specificity 71%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.87). These results demonstrate the possibility of detecting lysosomal dysfunction in CSF and further support the need to combine different biomarkers for improving the diagnostic accuracy of PD.

Background: An increasing number of diagnostic tests and biomarkers have been validated during the last decades, and this will still be a prominent field of research in the future because of the need for personalized medicine. Strict evaluation is needed whenever we aim at validating any potential diagnostic tool, and the first requirement a new testing procedure must fulfill is diagnostic accuracy. Summary: Diagnostic accuracy measures tell us about the ability of a test to discriminate between and/or predict disease and health. This discriminative and predictive potential can be quantified by measures of diagnostic accuracy such as sensitivity and specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, overall accuracy and diagnostic odds ratio. Some measures are useful for discriminative purposes, while others serve as a predictive tool. Measures of diagnostic accuracy vary in the way they depend on the prevalence, spectrum and definition of the disease. In general, measures of diagnostic accuracy are extremely sensitive to the design of the study. Studies not meeting strict methodological standards usually over- or underestimate the indicators of test performance and limit the applicability of the results of the study. Key Messages: The testing procedure should be verified on a reasonable population, including people with mild and severe disease, thus providing a comparable spectrum. Sensitivities and specificities are not predictive measures. Predictive values depend on disease prevalence, and their conclusions can be transposed to other settings only for studies which are based on a suitable population (e.g. screening studies). Likelihood ratios should be an optimal choice for reporting diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic accuracy measures must be reported with their confidence intervals. We always have to report paired measures (sensitivity and specificity, predictive values or likelihood ratios) for clinically meaningful thresholds. How much discriminative or predictive power we need depends on the clinical diagnostic pathway and on misclassification (false positives/negatives) costs.

There is a great interest in developing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of Parkinson's disease (PD). CSF alpha synuclein (α-syn) species, namely total and oligomeric α-syn (t-α-syn and o-α-syn), have shown to be of help for PD diagnosis. Preliminary evidences show that the combination of CSF t-α-syn and classical Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers—β-amyloid 1–42 (Aβ42), total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau)—differentiate PD patients from controls, and that reduced levels of Aβ42 represent a predictive factor for development of cognitive deterioration in PD. In this prospective study carried out in 44 PD patients and 25 neurological controls we wanted to verify whether the combination of CSF α-synuclein species—t-α-syn and o-α-syn—and classical AD biomarkers may help in differentiating PD from neurological controls, and if these biomarkers may predict cognitive decline. The median of follow-up duration was 3 years (range: 2–6 years). Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used for monitoring cognitive changes along time, being administered once a year. Oligo/total α-syn ratio (o/t-α-syn ratio) confirmed its diagnostic value, significantly contributing to the discrimination of PD from neurological controls. A greater diagnostic accuracy was reached when combining o/t-α-syn and Aβ42/tau ratios (Sens = 0.70, Spec = 0.84, AUC = 0.82; PPV = 0.89, NPV = 0.62, LR+ = 4.40, DOR = 12.52). Low CSF Aβ42 level was associated with a higher rate of MMSE and MoCA decline, confirming its role as independent predictive factor for cognitive decline in PD. None of the other biomarkers assessed (t-tau, p-tau, t-α-syn and o-α-syn) showed to have prognostic value. We conclude that combination of CSF o/t-α-syn and Aβ42/tau ratios improve the diagnostic accuracy of PD. PD patients showing low CSF Aβ42 levels at baseline are more prone to develop cognitive decline.

Background: Decreased concentrations of amyloid-β 1-42 (Aβ42) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and increased retention of Aβ tracers in the brain on positron emission tomography (PET) are considered the earliest biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, a proportion of cases show discrepancies between the results of the two biomarker modalities which may reflect inter-individual differences in Aβ metabolism. The CSF Aβ42/40 ratio seems to be a more accurate biomarker of clinical AD than CSF Aβ42 alone.Objective: We tested whether CSF Aβ42 alone or the Aβ42/40 ratio corresponds better with amyloid PET status and analyzed the distribution of cases with discordant CSF-PET results.Methods: CSF obtained from a mixed cohort (n = 200) of cognitively normal and abnormal research participants who had undergone amyloid PET within 12 months (n = 150 PET-negative, n = 50 PET-positive according to a previously published cut-off) was assayed for Aβ42 and Aβ40 using two recently developed immunoassays. Optimal CSF cut-offs for amyloid positivity were calculated, and concordance was tested by comparison of the areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) and McNemar’s test for paired proportions.Results: CSF Aβ42/40 corresponded better than Aβ42 with PET results, with a larger proportion of concordant cases (89.4% versus 74.9%, respectively, p < 0.0001) and a larger AUC (0.936 versus 0.814, respectively, p < 0.0001) associated with the ratio. For both CSF biomarkers, the percentage of CSF-abnormal/PET-normal cases was larger than that of CSF-normal/PET-abnormal cases.Conclusion: The CSF Aβ42/40 ratio is superior to Aβ42 alone as a marker of amyloid-positivity by PET. We hypothesize that this increase in performance reflects the ratio compensating for general between-individual variations in CSF total Aβ.