Persson Karin, Eldholm Rannveig Sakshaug, Barca Maria Lage, Cavallin Lena, Ferreira Daniel, Knapskog Anne-Brita, Selbæk Geir, Brækhus Anne, Saltvedt Ingvild, Westman Eric, Engedal Knut
Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Department of Geriatric medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway.
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 16;12(10):e0186595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186595. eCollection 2017.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: MRI assessment of the brain has demonstrated four different patterns of atrophy in patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD): typical AD, limbic-predominant AD, hippocampal-sparing AD, and a subtype with minimal atrophy, previously referred to as no-atrophy AD. The aim of the present study was to identify and describe the differences between these four AD subtypes in a longitudinal memory-clinic study.
The medial temporal lobes, the frontal regions, and the posterior regions were assessed with MRI visual rating scales to categorize 123 patients with mild AD according to ICD-10 and NINCDS-ADRDA criteria and the clinical dementia rating scale (CDR) into atrophy subtypes. Demographic data, neuropsychological measures, cerebrospinal-fluid biomarkers, and progression rate of dementia at two-year follow-up were compared between the groups.
Typical AD was found in 59 patients (48%); 29 (24%) patients had limbic-predominant AD; 19 (15%) had hippocampal-sparing AD; and 16 (13%) belonged to the group with minimal atrophy. No differences were found regarding cognitive test results or progression rates between the different subtypes. Using adjusted logistic regression analysis, we found that the patients in the minimal-atrophy group were less educated, had a lower baseline CDR sum of boxes score, and had higher levels of amyloid β in the cerebrospinal fluid.
Previous results concerning the prevalence and the similar phenotypic expressions of the four AD subtypes were confirmed. The main finding was that patients with minimal atrophy as assessed by MRI had less education than the other AD subtypes and that this could support the cognitive reserve hypothesis and, at least in part, explain the lower degree of atrophy in this group. Patients with less formal education might present with clinically typical AD symptoms before they have positive biomarkers of AD and this finding might challenge suggested biomarker-based criteria for AD.
背景/目的:对阿尔茨海默病性痴呆(AD)患者进行的脑部MRI评估显示出四种不同的萎缩模式:典型AD、边缘叶为主型AD、海马保留型AD以及一种萎缩程度最小的亚型,以前称为无萎缩型AD。本研究的目的是在一项纵向记忆门诊研究中识别并描述这四种AD亚型之间的差异。
采用MRI视觉评分量表对内侧颞叶、额叶区域和后部区域进行评估,根据ICD-10和NINCDS-ADRDA标准以及临床痴呆评定量表(CDR),将123例轻度AD患者分类为萎缩亚型。比较各组之间的人口统计学数据、神经心理学测量指标、脑脊液生物标志物以及两年随访时痴呆的进展率。
59例患者(48%)为典型AD;29例(24%)患者为边缘叶为主型AD;19例(15%)为海马保留型AD;16例(13%)属于萎缩程度最小的组。不同亚型之间在认知测试结果或进展率方面未发现差异。通过调整后的逻辑回归分析,我们发现萎缩程度最小组的患者受教育程度较低,基线CDR方框总分较低,脑脊液中淀粉样β蛋白水平较高。
先前关于四种AD亚型的患病率和相似表型表达的结果得到了证实。主要发现是,经MRI评估萎缩程度最小的患者比其他AD亚型受教育程度低,这可能支持认知储备假说,并至少部分解释了该组萎缩程度较低的原因。受正规教育较少的患者在出现AD阳性生物标志物之前可能会出现临床上典型的AD症状,这一发现可能会对基于生物标志物的AD诊断标准提出挑战。