Brier, Matthew R.

The spinal cord plays a central role in the pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of multiple sclerosis (MS), yet remains under-studied compared with the brain. This review summarizes key insights from the 2025 North American Imaging in MS Spinal Cord Imaging Workshop, highlighting recent advances, ongoing challenges, and future opportunities in MS spinal cord imaging. We review pathological studies and outline the clinical relevance of spinal cord lesions and atrophy for diagnosis, prognosis, and disease monitoring, highlighting emerging biomarkers of progression independent of relapse activity. Correlations between magnetic resonance imaging, histopathology, and clinical outcomes support the validation and translational potential of advanced spinal cord imaging techniques. Finally, we discuss spinal cord–specific processing pipelines and reproducibility challenges. Collectively, these insights underscore the need to integrate advanced and quantitative spinal cord imaging into clinical trials, research studies, and—when feasible—clinical care, to fully capture the extent of MS pathology, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe causes of rapidly progressive dementia are heterogeneous, including neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. Overlap in presenting symptoms and signs, results of cognitive testing, and findings on brain imaging and other common diagnostic tests confounds the etiologic diagnosis, contributing to diagnostic delays, missed opportunities for treatment, and poorer outcomes in patients with RPD. New tools and approaches are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy, with particular emphasis on improving early recognition of patients with potentially treatable causes of RPD.MethodsEstablished and emerging biomarkers of Alzheimer disease neuropathology (Aβ42/40, p‐tau181, p‐tau231), neuroaxonal and neuronal injury (neurofilament light [NfL], VILIP‐1, total tau), neuroinflammation (YKL‐40, sTREM2, GFAP, MCP‐1), and synaptic dysfunction (SNAP‐25, neurogranin) were measured in cerebrospinal fluid obtained at presentation from 78 prospectively accrued patients with RPD due to neurodegenerative (n = 35), vascular (n = 9), and autoimmune/inflammatory (n = 34) diseases, and 72 age‐ and sex‐similar cognitively normal individuals (controls). Causes of RPD were further classified as potentially treatment‐responsive or nonresponsive, referencing the extant literature. Biomarker levels were compared across etiologic diagnoses and by treatment responsiveness, referencing control values. Analyses were adjusted for the effects of age (ANCOVA).ResultsAlzheimer disease biomarkers (low Aβ42/40 and elevated p‐tau181 and p‐tau231) were associated with neurodegenerative causes of RPD (ANCOVA, p = 0.02 p = 0.30, p = 0.15), while high NfL (p = 0.61), low VILIP‐1 (p = 0.009), and elevated markers of inflammation (sTREM2, p = 0.009; YKL‐40, p<0.001) identified patients with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases (Figure). MCP‐1 levels were highest in patients with vascular causes of RPD (p = 0.08). 44 patients (56.4%) had potentially treatment‐responsive causes of RPD. Treatment responsiveness was associated with higher levels of CSF Aβ42/40 (p = 0.003), NfL (p<0.001), sTREM2 (p<0.001) and YKL‐40 (p<0.001); and lower levels of p‐tau‐181 and p‐tau231 (p<0.001, p<0.001) and VILIP‐1 (p<0.001).ConclusionSelected biomarkers measured in CSF at presentation associate with etiologic diagnosis and treatment responsiveness in patients with neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory causes of RPD. Biomarker panels may be adapted to improve recognition of patients with treatment‐responsive causes of RPD early in the symptomatic course when treatments may be most effective.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to apply established and emerging cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers to improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with rapidly progressive dementia (RPD). Overlap in clinical presentation and results of diagnostic tests confounds etiologic diagnosis in patients with RPD. Objective measures are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy and to recognize patients with potentially treatment‐responsive causes of RPD.MethodsBiomarkers of Alzheimer disease neuropathology (amyloid‐β 42/40 ratio, phosphorylated tau [p‐tau181, p‐tau231]), neuroaxonal/neuronal injury (neurofilament light chain [NfL], visinin‐like protein‐1 [VILIP‐1], total tau), neuroinflammation (chitinase‐3‐like protein [YKL‐40], soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 [sTREM2], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], monocyte chemoattractant protein‐1 [MCP‐1]), and synaptic dysfunction (synaptosomal‐associated protein 25kDa, neurogranin) were measured in CSF obtained at presentation from 78 prospectively accrued patients with RPD due to neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases; 35 age‐ and sex‐matched patients with typically progressive neurodegenerative disease; and 72 cognitively normal controls. Biomarker levels were compared across etiologic diagnoses, by potential treatment responsiveness, and between patients with typical and rapidly progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease.ResultsAlzheimer disease biomarkers were associated with neurodegenerative causes of RPD. High NfL, sTREM2, and YKL‐40 and low VILIP‐1 identified patients with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. MCP‐1 levels were highest in patients with vascular causes of RPD. A multivariate model including GFAP, MCP‐1, p‐tau181, and sTREM2 identified the 44 patients with treatment‐responsive causes of RPD with 89% accuracy. Minimal differences were observed between typical and rapidly progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease.InterpretationSelected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. The ability of cross‐sectional biomarkers to inform upon mechanisms that drive rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease is less clear. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:299–313

AbstractCarriers of mutations responsible for dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease provide a unique opportunity to study potential imaging biomarkers. Biomarkers based on routinely acquired clinical MR images, could supplement the extant invasive or logistically challenging) biomarker studies. We used 1104 longitudinal MR, 324 amyloid beta, and 87 tau positron emission tomography imaging sessions from 525 participants enrolled in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Observational Study to extract novel imaging metrics representing the mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of standardized image intensities of T1‐weighted and Fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MR scans. There was an exponential decrease in FLAIR‐μ in mutation carriers and an increase in FLAIR and T1 signal heterogeneity (T1‐σ and FLAIR‐σ) as participants approached the symptom onset in both supramarginal, the right postcentral and right superior temporal gyri as well as both caudate nuclei, putamina, thalami, and amygdalae. After controlling for the effect of regional atrophy, FLAIR‐μ decreased and T1‐σ and FLAIR‐σ increased with increasing amyloid beta and tau deposition in numerous cortical regions. In symptomatic mutation carriers and independent of the effect of regional atrophy, tau pathology demonstrated a stronger relationship with image intensity metrics, compared with amyloid pathology. We propose novel MR imaging intensity‐based metrics using standard clinical T1 and FLAIR images which strongly associates with the progression of pathology in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease. We suggest that tau pathology may be a key driver of the observed changes in this cohort of patients.