Dunham, Steven

ABSTRACT Objective The optimal treatment for neurosarcoidosis myelitis is uncertain. We characterize incident neurosarcoidosis myelitis and assess treatment response by MRI and clinical scales. Methods Incident probable or definite neurosarcoidosis myelitis in adults was retrospectively identified from 13 academic medical centers. Cases were analyzed by initial treatment. The primary outcome was T1 post‐contrast gadolinium enhancement resolution at 6 months post‐treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) from nadir to final follow‐up. Results Two hundred two patients were identified (median diagnosis age: 47 years (IQR 39–55); male: female 1.3:1). Median nadir mRS and EDSS were 2 (IQR 2–3) and 4 (IQR 2.5–6). At initial treatment, 129 (63.9%) received prolonged corticosteroids ≥ 4 weeks (group A 1 ), 36 (17.8%) received corticosteroids < 4 weeks (B 1 ), 21 (10.4%) received corticosteroids plus sarcoidosis‐directed immunosuppressant (E), and 16 (7.9%) received corticosteroids plus non‐sarcoidosis‐directed agents (F). In 167 cases with sufficient imaging, there were no significant differences in contrast enhancement resolution at 6 months (A 1 27/106 (25.5%), B 1 9/28 (32.1%), E 5/19 (26.3%), F 5/14 (35.7%); Fisher's exact p = 0.76). There were no significant differences in changes in mRS or EDSS among treatment groups (Kruskal–Wallis p = 0.69 and 0.63, respectively) after median follow‐up of 46.5 months (IQR 18–91.3). Interpretation Different initial immunosuppression strategies did not correlate with MRI contrast enhancement resolution at 6 months or clinical scales (mRS, EDSS). However, conclusions are limited by retrospective design, imbalanced cohorts, and insensitivity of binary MRI outcomes and available clinical scales for treatment response in neurosarcoidosis.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with rapid progressive Alzheimer disease and related dementias (rpAD/ADRD) develop dementia within 1 year or incapacitation within 2 years of symptom onset. We previously showed that selected CSF biomarkers of neuronal injury (NfL, VILIP‐1), AD neuropathology (p‐tau181), and neuroinflammation (GFAP, MCP‐1, sTREM2) measured at presentation associated with etiologic diagnoses and reliably differentiated patients with treatment‐responsive causes of rapid progressive dementia. However, no differences were identified between CSF biomarkers in patients with rapid and typical progressive forms of AD/ADRD, leaving key questions unanswered concerning the mechanisms that drive rpAD/ADRD. Blood‐based biomarkers may inform the systemic factors that contribute to rpAD/ADRD, including the systemic inflammation, metabolic function, and vascular injury.MethodsBiomarkers of systemic inflammation (Eotaxin‐3, IFN‐γ, IL‐1b, IL‐2, IL‐4, IL‐6, IL‐8, IL‐10, IL‐12p70, IL‐13, TARC, TNF‐α), metabolic function (A2M, B2M, FABP‐3, FVII, I‐309, IL‐18, PPY, TNC, TPO), and vascular injury (CRP, SAA, sICAM‐1, sVCAM‐1) were measured in plasma obtained at presentation from patients with rpAD/ADRD (n=29) and age‐ and sex‐ similar participants with typical progressive AD/ADRD (n=39) enrolled in prospective studies of memory and aging at Mayo Clinic in Florida. Biomarker measures were completed at the University of North Texas Institute for Translational Research using Meso Scale Discovery multiplexed assays. Biomarker concentrations were compared between groups using univariate analyses; potential predictors (p<0.05) were further evaluated via step‐wise multivariate logistic regression.ResultsMarkers of vascular injury (SAA, CRP, sICAM‐1), metabolic function (I‐309, TPO), and systemic inflammation (Eotaxin‐3, TARC, TNF‐α) were increased in patients with rapid versus typical progressive AD/ADRD (p<0.05). Eotaxin‐3, I‐309, and SAA were independently associated with rpAD/ADRD in multivariable model after controlling for age and sex. The overall model correctly characterized 86.8% of patients, with an area under the curve of 0.864 (95%CI: 0.777‐0.950; p<0.001).ConclusionBlood‐based biomarkers of systemic inflammation, metabolic function, and vascular injury were elevated at presentation in patients with rapid vs typical AD/ADRD. These findings may provide additional insights into the mechanisms that drive rpAD/ADRD. Longitudinal measures from larger cohorts are needed to decipher the relationship between candidate biomarkers and rpAD/ADRD.

AbstractBackgroundRapidly progressive dementia (RPD) is variably defined across published cohorts. A standardized definition is needed to support multicenter studies required to inform the causes of RPD and optimize recognition and management of treatment‐responsive causes. An optimal definition will capture the broad spectrum of causes of RPD, adequately differentiate patients with rapid and typically progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease, and be reliably implemented across healthcare settings and centers.MethodThe Clinical Dementia Rating® (CDR) is a validated dementia staging tool that is widely used in clinical trials and observational studies. We applied the CDR to diagnose RPD in patients who developed dementia (CDR ≥1) within 1 year or incapacitation (CDR ≥2) within 2 years of symptom onset. This definition was prospectively applied to patients with suspected RPD at Mayo Clinic in Florida (MCF: Jacksonville, FL; Jan 2020 – Oct 2023) and Washington University in St. Louis (WU: Saint Louis, MO; Jun 2016 – Dec 2019), and retrospectively applied to individuals within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) dataset. Criteria performance was compared across cohorts.ResultTwo‐hundred twenty‐six patients were referred with suspected RPD at MCF‐WU. Of these, 155/226 (68.6%) met our proposed RPD criteria, including patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD; 34/155, 21.9%), Creutzfeldt Jacob disease (CJD; 25/155, 16.1%), autoimmune encephalitis (52/155, 33.5%), vascular pathologies (14/155, 9.0%), toxic/metabolic disruptions (7/155, 4.5%) and primary psychiatric disorders (4/155, 2.6%). A small subset of NACC participants met our proposed RPD criteria (836/20,418; 0.04%), emphasizing the unique nature of RPD. Causes of RPD in NACC included ADRD (676/836, 80.1%), CJD (72/836, 8.6%), and vascular pathologies (24/836, 2.9%). Rates of progression (∆CDR sum‐of‐boxes/year) clearly distinguished patients with RPD from non‐RPD in both cohorts (MCF‐WU, 13.6±5.8 vs 4.7±5.9, p<0.001; NACC, 6.7±3.1 vs. 1.7±1.4, p<0.001).ConclusionOur CDR‐based definition of RPD distinguished patients with a broad spectrum of causes of RPD from those with typically progressive dementia across multiple cohorts. Broad application of this criteria would standardize diagnosis of RPD and support the design and implementation of multicenter studies RPD.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with the precipitous onset of cognitive symptoms (i.e., suspected rapid progressive dementia [RPD]) may continue to decline (true RPD) or may stabilize or improve (non‐RPD). Recognizing patients with RPD early in the disease course is important to support clinical care and enrollment in research.MethodPatients referred for the evaluation of suspected RPD were prospectively enrolled and followed for up to 2 years at Mayo Clinic in Florida (Jacksonville, FL; Jan‐2020 – Oct‐2023) and Washington University in St. Louis (Saint Louis, MO; Jun‐2016 – Dec‐2019). Clinical data were independently reviewed by two dementia specialists who established clinical diagnoses, referencing published criteria. Patients were diagnosed with RPD if they progressed to dementia (global Clinical Dementia Rating® [CDR] ≥1) within 1 year or incapacitation (CDR ≥2) within 2 years of symptom onset. Univariate statistics compared demographics, clinical details, and test results between patients with RPD and non‐RPD. Variables with p<0.1 were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to identify factors associated with RPD.ResultOf 248 patients referred for suspected RPD, 187 (75.4%) met stated criteria for RPD. Patients with RPD were older (62.6±14.4 years vs 55.0±18.3 years; p<0.001), and more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer disease or related dementias (28.3% vs 9.8%; p = 0.003) or Creutzfeldt‐Jakob (19.1% vs 4.6%; p = 0.008). Non‐RPD cases were more often attributed to autoimmune/inflammatory disease (42.6% vs 29.4%, p = 0.061) or other causes (e.g., psychiatric, neoplasms, toxic/metabolic; 34.4% vs 16.6%, p = 0.006). After controlling for age, hallucinations (OR, 2.81; 95%CI: 1.21‐6.52), elevated CSF protein (OR, 2.43; 95%CI: 1.17‐5.03), and CSF white blood cell count <5 cells/mm3 (OR, 2.77; 95%CI: 1.32‐5.85) were independently associated with RPD. Cortical visual loss (15/183, 8.2%) and substantial brain atrophy on MRI (27/184, 14.7%) were specific to patients with RPD, representing additional distinguishing features.ConclusionHallucinations, cortical visual loss, substantial atrophy on MRI, elevated CSF protein, and normal CSF white blood cell count were independently associated with RPD. Early detection of these features in patients with suspected RPD may inform clinical care and enrollment in research studies of RPD.

AbstractBackgroundRapidly progressive dementia (RPD) includes patients with less than two years from the onset of cognitive impairment to incapacitation due to dementia. Although RPD is often associated with fatal neurodegenerative diseases, including early‐onset Alzheimer disease or Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease, treatable forms of RPD are increasingly recognized. Early recognition of patients with potentially treatable causes of RPD is key to the timely provision of therapies required to achieve the best possible long‐term outcomes.Method155 patients with RPD were prospectively enrolled from February 2016 to August 2022 via two tertiary care centers. Etiologic diagnoses were independently assigned by two neurologists with good agreement (>90%). Causes of RPD were further classified as treatment‐responsive or nonresponsive, referencing the extant literature. Demographic, clinical, and paraclinical features associated with treatable causes of RPD were identified using stepwise multivariate logistic regression and validated with 5‐fold cross validation.Result87/155 patients (56.1%) had a potentially treatable cause of RPD, including autoimmune/inflammatory disease (n = 52, 59.8%), vasculitis (n = 13, 14.9%), primary psychiatric disease (n = 4, 4.6%), or nutritional deficiency (n = 4, 4.6%). Multivariable analyses identified seven features that were independently associated with treatment‐responsiveness: age‐at‐symptom onset (OR: 0.62 per decade, 95%CI: 0.42‐0.93), seizures (OR: 9.81, 95%CI: 2.84‐33.89), MRI suggestive of autoimmune encephalitis (OR: 23.08, 95%CI: 2.28‐233.40), CSF white blood cell count ≥10 cells/mm3 (OR: 32.24, 95%CI:5.80‐179.21), movement abnormalities (OR: 4.99, 95%CI: 1.76‐14.10), presence of disease‐associated tumor (OR: 13.82, 95%CI: 2.25‐85.11), and mania (OR: 18.47, 95%CI: 1.76‐193.61). Model performance was excellent (c‐statistic = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.82‐0.94; p<0.001): 71 patients (81.6%) with potentially treatable causes of RPD and 56 patients (82.4%) with non‐treatable causes of RPD were correctly classified (PPV = 85.5%; NPV = 77.8%).ConclusionTreatment‐responsive causes of RPD were common in our series. Younger age, seizures, movement abnormalities, or mania at presentation, and paraclinical tests suggesting inflammation (MRI or CSF) or tumor in patients with RPD should prompt consideration of treatable causes of RPD and initiation of treatment when indicated.