Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain for the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of frontotemporal dementia.
Frontotemporal dementia
Glial fibrillary acidic protein
Neurofilament
Plasma biomarkers
Journal
Translational neurodegeneration
ISSN: 2047-9158
Titre abrégé: Transl Neurodegener
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101591861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 12 2021
10 12 2021
Historique:
received:
07
10
2021
accepted:
01
12
2021
entrez:
11
12
2021
pubmed:
12
12
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Astrocytes play an essential role in neuroinflammation and are involved in the pathogenesis of neurodenegerative diseases. Studies of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), an astrocytic damage marker, may help advance our understanding of different neurodegenerative diseases. In this study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of plasma GFAP (pGFAP), plasma neurofilament light chain (pNfL) and their combination for frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their clinical utility in predicting disease progression. pGFAP and pNfL concentrations were measured in 72 FTD, 56 AD and 83 cognitively normal (CN) participants using the Single Molecule Array technology. Of the 211 participants, 199 underwent cerebrospinal (CSF) analysis and 122 had magnetic resonance imaging. We compared cross-sectional biomarker levels between groups, studied their diagnostic performance and assessed correlation between CSF biomarkers, cognitive performance and cortical thickness. The prognostic performance was investigated, analyzing cognitive decline through group comparisons by tertile. Unlike pNfL, which was increased similarly in both clinical groups, pGFAP was increased in FTD but lower than in AD (all P < 0.01). Combination of both plasma markers improved the diagnostic performance to discriminate FTD from AD (area under the curve [AUC]: combination 0.78; pGFAP 0.7; pNfL 0.61, all P < 0.05). In FTD, pGFAP correlated with cognition, CSF and plasma NfL, and cortical thickness (all P < 0.05). The higher tertile of pGFAP was associated with greater change in MMSE score and poor cognitive outcome during follow-up both in FTD (1.40 points annually, hazard ratio [HR] 3.82, P < 0.005) and in AD (1.20 points annually, HR 2.26, P < 0.005). pGFAP and pNfL levels differ in FTD and AD, and their combination is useful for distinguishing between the two diseases. pGFAP could also be used to track disease severity and predict greater cognitive decline during follow-up in patients with FTD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Astrocytes play an essential role in neuroinflammation and are involved in the pathogenesis of neurodenegerative diseases. Studies of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), an astrocytic damage marker, may help advance our understanding of different neurodegenerative diseases. In this study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of plasma GFAP (pGFAP), plasma neurofilament light chain (pNfL) and their combination for frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their clinical utility in predicting disease progression.
METHODS
pGFAP and pNfL concentrations were measured in 72 FTD, 56 AD and 83 cognitively normal (CN) participants using the Single Molecule Array technology. Of the 211 participants, 199 underwent cerebrospinal (CSF) analysis and 122 had magnetic resonance imaging. We compared cross-sectional biomarker levels between groups, studied their diagnostic performance and assessed correlation between CSF biomarkers, cognitive performance and cortical thickness. The prognostic performance was investigated, analyzing cognitive decline through group comparisons by tertile.
RESULTS
Unlike pNfL, which was increased similarly in both clinical groups, pGFAP was increased in FTD but lower than in AD (all P < 0.01). Combination of both plasma markers improved the diagnostic performance to discriminate FTD from AD (area under the curve [AUC]: combination 0.78; pGFAP 0.7; pNfL 0.61, all P < 0.05). In FTD, pGFAP correlated with cognition, CSF and plasma NfL, and cortical thickness (all P < 0.05). The higher tertile of pGFAP was associated with greater change in MMSE score and poor cognitive outcome during follow-up both in FTD (1.40 points annually, hazard ratio [HR] 3.82, P < 0.005) and in AD (1.20 points annually, HR 2.26, P < 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
pGFAP and pNfL levels differ in FTD and AD, and their combination is useful for distinguishing between the two diseases. pGFAP could also be used to track disease severity and predict greater cognitive decline during follow-up in patients with FTD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34893073
doi: 10.1186/s40035-021-00275-w
pii: 10.1186/s40035-021-00275-w
pmc: PMC8662866
doi:
Substances chimiques
GFAP protein, human
0
Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
50Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Brain. 2011 Sep;134(Pt 9):2456-77
pubmed: 21810890
Neurology. 2016 Sep 27;87(13):1329-36
pubmed: 27581216
Neurology. 2013 Jan 29;80(5):496-503
pubmed: 23359374
JAMA Neurol. 2021 Dec 1;78(12):1471-1483
pubmed: 34661615
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Sep 26;97(20):11050-5
pubmed: 10984517
Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 7;12(1):3400
pubmed: 34099648
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;91(3):263-270
pubmed: 31937580
J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67(2):481-488
pubmed: 30594925
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 1987 Sep;6(3):235-43
pubmed: 3689056
Neurology. 2018 Apr 3;90(14):e1231-e1239
pubmed: 29514947
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020 Sep 28;12(1):118
pubmed: 32988409
Mov Disord. 2017 Jun;32(6):853-864
pubmed: 28467028
Neurobiol Aging. 2000 Nov-Dec;21(6):913-9
pubmed: 11124442
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021 Mar 27;13(1):68
pubmed: 33773595
Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Feb;2(2):e87-e95
pubmed: 36098162
Eur Neurol. 2001;46(1):35-8
pubmed: 11455181
Brain. 2021 Dec 16;144(11):3505-3516
pubmed: 34259835
Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Jan 11;11(1):27
pubmed: 33431793
J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(3):1129-1141
pubmed: 32804092
Neurology. 2015 Aug 18;85(7):626-33
pubmed: 26180139
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019 Oct 14;5:597-609
pubmed: 31650016
Neurology. 2011 Mar 15;76(11):1006-14
pubmed: 21325651
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 01;76(9):1035-1048
pubmed: 31206160
Immunity. 2017 Jun 20;46(6):957-967
pubmed: 28636962
Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Oct;16(10):1358-1371
pubmed: 32573951
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019 Sep;6(9):1815-1824
pubmed: 31464088
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 20;:
pubmed: 33219041
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;90(1):4-10
pubmed: 30224549
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019 Dec 31;12(1):2
pubmed: 31892365
J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;74(3):903-911
pubmed: 32083577
Transl Neurodegener. 2020 Nov 26;9(1):42
pubmed: 33239064
J Neurochem. 2016 Jan;136(2):258-61
pubmed: 26485083
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Dec;18(12):1103-1111
pubmed: 31701893
Neurology. 2017 Jul 11;89(2):178-188
pubmed: 28592456
Ann Neurol. 2020 Dec;88(6):1065-1076
pubmed: 32799383
Acta Neurol Scand. 2003 May;107(5):318-23
pubmed: 12713522
Neurology. 1990 Jan;40(1):33-7
pubmed: 2296379
J Alzheimers Dis. 2009;17(3):541-51
pubmed: 19433893
Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):681-695
pubmed: 31879236
Glia. 1989;2(6):420-36
pubmed: 2531723
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Dec;92(12):1305-1312
pubmed: 34187866