Assessment of Preanalytical Cerebrospinal Fluid Handling and Storage Factors on Measurement of Aß1-42, Aß1-40, and pTau181 Using an Automated Chemiluminescent Platform.

BACKGROUND: Standardizing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) laboratory protocols will improve the reliability and availability of clinical biomarker testing required for prescription of novel Alzheimer disease (AD) therapies. This study evaluated several preanalytical handling and storage factors common to ß-amyloid1-42 (Aß1-42), ß-amyloid1-40 (Aß1-40), and phosphorylated tau (pTau181) concentrations including storage at different temperatures, extended cap contact, various mixing methods, and multiple freeze-thaw cycles. METHODS: Aß1-42, Aß1-40, and pTau181 concentrations were measured using LUMIPULSE G1200 automated assays. Samples were collected in polypropylene tubes of various volumes. Sample cap-contact was evaluated by storing samples in upright and inverted positions at either 4°C for 1 week or -80°C for 1 month. To assess mixing methods, samples were freeze-thawed and mixed by inversion, vortex, horizontal roller, or unmixed prior to assay sampling. The impact of successive freeze-thaw cycles was assessed through freezing, thawing, and analyzing CSF samples. RESULTS: Short-term storage at 4°C did not affect Aß1-42, Aß1-40, or pTau181 measurements in any tube type. Tube cap contact affected Aß1-42 in 2.5 mL tubes and pTau181 levels in 10 mL tubes. No difference was observed between mixing methods. After 4 freeze-thaw cycles, Aß1-42 significantly decreased but Aß1-40 remained unchanged. Utilizing the Aß1-42/Aß1-40 ratio, Aß1-42 values normalized, maintaining ratio values within ±5% of baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Storage of CSF at 4°C for 1 week or -80°C for 1 month did not significantly affect Aß1-42, Aß1-40, pTau181, or associated ratio measurements. Tube cap-contact impacted pTau181 and pTau181/Aß1-42 values in larger tubes. Mixing methods are equivalent. The Aß1-42/Aß1-40 ratio compensates for freeze-thaw variability up to 4 cycles.

The Clinical Utility of the MOCA in iNPH Assessment.

Objectives: We sought to estimate reliable change thresholds for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for older adults with suspected Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (iNPH). Furthermore, we aimed to determine the likelihood that shunted patients will demonstrate significant improvement on the MoCA, and to identify possible predictors of this improvement. Methods: Patients (N = 224) presenting with symptoms of iNPH were given a MoCA assessment at their first clinic visit, and also before and after tap test (TT) or extended lumbar drainage (ELD). Patients who were determined to be good candidates for shunts (N = 71, 31.7%) took another MoCA assessment following shunt insertion. Reliable change thresholds for MoCA were derived using baseline visit to pre-TT/ELD assessment using nine different methodologies. Baseline characteristics of patients whose post-shunt MoCA did and did not exceed the reliable change threshold were compared. Results: All nine of reliable change methods indicated that a 5-point increase in MoCA would be reliable for patients with a baseline MoCA from 16 to 22 (38.4% of patients). Furthermore, a majority of reliable change methods indicated that a 5-point increase in MoCA would be reliable for patients with a baseline MoCA from 14 to 25. Reliable change thresholds varied across methods from 4 to 7 points for patients outside of this range. 10.1% had at least a 5-point increase from baseline to post-TT/ELD. Compared to patients who did not receive a shunt, patients who received a shunt did not have lower average MoCA at baseline (p = 0.88) or have better improvement in MoCA scores after the tap test (p = 0.17). Among shunted patients, 23.4% improved by at least 5 points on the MoCA from baseline to post-shunt. Time since onset of memory problems and post-TT/ELD gait function were the only clinical factors significantly associated with having a reliable change in MoCA after shunt insertion (p = 0.019; p = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with iNPH, clinicians could consider using a threshold of 5 points for determining whether iNPH-symptomatic patients have experienced cognitive benefits from cerebrospinal fluid drainage at an individual level. However, a reliable change cannot be detected for patients with a baseline MoCA of 26 or greater, necessitating a different cognitive assessment tool for these patients.

The Impact of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on the Burden of Migraine: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been linked with migraine in prior studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the individual and joint burdens of migraine and PTSD in a population-based cohort. METHODS: The National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (NCS-R) is a general population study conducted in the United States from February 2001-April 2003. PTSD and migraine were assessed, and four groups defined based on their migraine and PTSD status. The four groups included those with no migraine and no PTSD (controls, n=4535), those with migraine and without PTSD (migraine alone, n=236), those with PTSD and without migraine (PTSD alone, n=244), and those with both migraine and PTSD (mig+PTSD, n=68). Logistic and Poisson regression models were used to assess the association between dichotomous/multilevel outcome variables indicating financial, health, and interpersonal burdens and each migraine/PTSD group. RESULTS: Compared to controls, those with Mig+PTSD were more likely to be in the low poverty index (48% vs 41%, AOR 2.16; CI: 1.10, 4.24) and were less likely to be working for pay or profit in the past week (50% vs 68%, AOR 0.42; CI: 0.24, 0.74) but not those with migraine or PTSD alone. Additionally, the number of days where work quality was cut due to physical or mental health or substance abuse in the past month was greater in all groups compared to controls: (1) migraine alone: mean 2.57 (SEM 0.32) vs mean 1.09 (SEM 0.08) days, ARR=2.39; CI: 2.19, 2.62; (2) PTSD alone: mean 2.43 (SEM 0.33) vs mean 1.09 (SEM 0.08) days, ARR=2.09; CI: 1.91, 2.29; (3) mig+PTSD: mean 8.2 (SEM 0.79) vs 1.09 (SEM 0.08) days, ARR 6.79; CI 6.16, 7.49; and was over 2.5-fold greater in those mig+PTSD than migraine alone (mean 8.0 [SEM 0.79] vs 2.6 days [SEM 0.72], ARR 2.77; CI: 2.45, 3.14). The likelihood of having difficulty getting along or maintaining a social life was also increased in all groups relative to controls: (1) migraine alone: 21% vs 5.4%, AOR 4.20; CI: 2.62, 6.74; (2) PTSD alone: 18% vs 5.4%, AOR 3.40; CI: 2.40, 4.82; (3) Mig+PTSD: 39% vs 5.4%, AOR 9.95; CI: 5.72, 17.32, and was 2-fold greater in those with Mig+PTSD as compared to those with migraine alone (AOR 2.32; CI: 1.15, 4.69). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the need for those who treat migraine patients to be aware of the comorbidity with PTSD, as these patients may be particularly prone to adverse financial, health, and interpersonal disease burdens.