Thomas G. Beach, Geidy E. Serrano, Nan Zhang, Erika D. Driver-Dunckley, Lucia I. Sue, Holly A. Shill, Shyamal H. Mehta, Christine Belden, Cecilia Tremblay, Parichita Choudhury, Alireza Atri, Charles H. Adler
{"title":"路易体疾病的临床病理异质性:并发阿尔茨海默病的深远影响","authors":"Thomas G. Beach, Geidy E. Serrano, Nan Zhang, Erika D. Driver-Dunckley, Lucia I. Sue, Holly A. Shill, Shyamal H. Mehta, Christine Belden, Cecilia Tremblay, Parichita Choudhury, Alireza Atri, Charles H. Adler","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.30.24312864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, proposals have been advanced to redefine or reclassify Lewy body disorders by merging the long-established entities of Parkinson’s disease (PD), Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). These proposals reject the International DLB Consortium classification system that has evolved over three decades of consensus collaborations between neurologists, neuropsychologists and neuropathologists. While the Consortium’s “one year rule” for separating PD and DLB has been criticized as arbitrary, it has been a pragmatic and effective tool for splitting the continuum between the two entities. In addition to the decades of literature supporting the non-homogeneity of PD and DLB, it has become increasingly apparent that Lewy body disorders may fundamentally differ in their etiology. Most PD subjects, as well as most clinically-presenting DLB subjects, might best be classified as having a “primary synucleinopathy” while most clinically-unidentified DLB subjects, who also have concurrent neuropathology-criteria AD (AD/DLB), as well as those with neuropathological AD and amygdala-predominant LBD insufficient for a DLB diagnosis, may best be classified as having a “secondary synucleinopathy. Importantly, the DLB Consortium recognized the importance of comorbid AD pathology by defining “Low”, “Intermediate” and “High” subdivisions of DLB based on the relative brain stages of both Lewy body and AD pathology. If the one-year rule for separating PD from DLB, and for then dividing DLB into subtypes based on the presence and severity of comorbid AD pathology, is effective, then the divided groups should statistically differ in important ways. In this study we used the comprehensive clinicopathological database of the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND) to empirically test this hypothesis. Furthermore, we used multivariable statistical models to test the hypothesis that comorbid AD neuropathology is a major predictor of the presence and severity of postmortem Lewy synucleinopathy. The results confirm the clinicopathological heterogeneity of Lewy body disorders as well as the profound influence of comorbid AD pathology.","PeriodicalId":501367,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Neurology","volume":"261 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinicopathological Heterogeneity of Lewy Body Diseases: The Profound Influence of Comorbid Alzheimer’s Disease\",\"authors\":\"Thomas G. Beach, Geidy E. Serrano, Nan Zhang, Erika D. Driver-Dunckley, Lucia I. Sue, Holly A. Shill, Shyamal H. Mehta, Christine Belden, Cecilia Tremblay, Parichita Choudhury, Alireza Atri, Charles H. Adler\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.08.30.24312864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, proposals have been advanced to redefine or reclassify Lewy body disorders by merging the long-established entities of Parkinson’s disease (PD), Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). These proposals reject the International DLB Consortium classification system that has evolved over three decades of consensus collaborations between neurologists, neuropsychologists and neuropathologists. While the Consortium’s “one year rule” for separating PD and DLB has been criticized as arbitrary, it has been a pragmatic and effective tool for splitting the continuum between the two entities. In addition to the decades of literature supporting the non-homogeneity of PD and DLB, it has become increasingly apparent that Lewy body disorders may fundamentally differ in their etiology. Most PD subjects, as well as most clinically-presenting DLB subjects, might best be classified as having a “primary synucleinopathy” while most clinically-unidentified DLB subjects, who also have concurrent neuropathology-criteria AD (AD/DLB), as well as those with neuropathological AD and amygdala-predominant LBD insufficient for a DLB diagnosis, may best be classified as having a “secondary synucleinopathy. Importantly, the DLB Consortium recognized the importance of comorbid AD pathology by defining “Low”, “Intermediate” and “High” subdivisions of DLB based on the relative brain stages of both Lewy body and AD pathology. If the one-year rule for separating PD from DLB, and for then dividing DLB into subtypes based on the presence and severity of comorbid AD pathology, is effective, then the divided groups should statistically differ in important ways. In this study we used the comprehensive clinicopathological database of the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND) to empirically test this hypothesis. Furthermore, we used multivariable statistical models to test the hypothesis that comorbid AD neuropathology is a major predictor of the presence and severity of postmortem Lewy synucleinopathy. The results confirm the clinicopathological heterogeneity of Lewy body disorders as well as the profound influence of comorbid AD pathology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Neurology\",\"volume\":\"261 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.30.24312864\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.30.24312864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
近年来,有人提出将帕金森病(PD)、帕金森病性痴呆(PDD)和路易体痴呆(DLB)这几个历史悠久的实体合并起来,重新定义或重新分类路易体疾病。这些建议拒绝了国际路易体痴呆联盟的分类系统,该系统是神经学家、神经心理学家和神经病理学家经过三十年的共识合作发展而来的。虽然国际 DLB 联盟将 PD 和 DLB 区分开来的 "一年规则 "被批评为武断,但它一直是划分两个实体之间连续性的实用而有效的工具。除了数十年来支持帕金森氏症和多发性硬化症非同一性的文献外,越来越明显的是路易体失调症在病因学上可能存在根本性差异。大多数帕金森病患者和大多数临床表现的 DLB 患者最好被归类为患有 "原发性突触核蛋白病",而大多数临床未确定的 DLB 患者,如果同时患有神经病理学标准的 AD(AD/DLB),以及那些神经病理学标准的 AD 和杏仁核为主的路易体疾病不足以诊断为 DLB 的患者,最好被归类为患有 "继发性突触核蛋白病"。重要的是,DLB联盟认识到了合并AD病理的重要性,根据路易体和AD病理在大脑中的相对阶段,定义了DLB的 "低度"、"中度 "和 "高度 "分类。如果将 PD 与 DLB 区分开来,然后根据合并 AD 病变的存在和严重程度将 DLB 划分为亚型的一年规则是有效的,那么在统计学上,被划分的组别应该存在重要差异。在本研究中,我们利用亚利桑那州衰老与神经退行性疾病研究(AZSAND)的综合临床病理数据库对这一假设进行了实证检验。此外,我们还使用多变量统计模型检验了以下假设:合并 AD 神经病理学是存在路易突触核蛋白病及其严重程度的主要预测因素。结果证实了路易体疾病的临床病理异质性以及合并 AD 病理的深远影响。
Clinicopathological Heterogeneity of Lewy Body Diseases: The Profound Influence of Comorbid Alzheimer’s Disease
In recent years, proposals have been advanced to redefine or reclassify Lewy body disorders by merging the long-established entities of Parkinson’s disease (PD), Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). These proposals reject the International DLB Consortium classification system that has evolved over three decades of consensus collaborations between neurologists, neuropsychologists and neuropathologists. While the Consortium’s “one year rule” for separating PD and DLB has been criticized as arbitrary, it has been a pragmatic and effective tool for splitting the continuum between the two entities. In addition to the decades of literature supporting the non-homogeneity of PD and DLB, it has become increasingly apparent that Lewy body disorders may fundamentally differ in their etiology. Most PD subjects, as well as most clinically-presenting DLB subjects, might best be classified as having a “primary synucleinopathy” while most clinically-unidentified DLB subjects, who also have concurrent neuropathology-criteria AD (AD/DLB), as well as those with neuropathological AD and amygdala-predominant LBD insufficient for a DLB diagnosis, may best be classified as having a “secondary synucleinopathy. Importantly, the DLB Consortium recognized the importance of comorbid AD pathology by defining “Low”, “Intermediate” and “High” subdivisions of DLB based on the relative brain stages of both Lewy body and AD pathology. If the one-year rule for separating PD from DLB, and for then dividing DLB into subtypes based on the presence and severity of comorbid AD pathology, is effective, then the divided groups should statistically differ in important ways. In this study we used the comprehensive clinicopathological database of the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND) to empirically test this hypothesis. Furthermore, we used multivariable statistical models to test the hypothesis that comorbid AD neuropathology is a major predictor of the presence and severity of postmortem Lewy synucleinopathy. The results confirm the clinicopathological heterogeneity of Lewy body disorders as well as the profound influence of comorbid AD pathology.