Evaluating routine blood and cerebrospinal fluid samples in narcolepsy patients.

Cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 is proven to be a precise diagnostic marker of narcolepsy Type 1 (NT1). However other characteristics of cerebrospinal fluid and blood parameters have not yet been described. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences in routine blood and cerebrospinal fluid analyses between NT1 patients and patients suspected of hypersomnia. We collected retrospectively all measures of cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 between 2019 and 2022. This yielded 612 patients out of which 146 were diagnosed with NT1 and the rest (466 patients) were used as a control group. We selected the most relevant routine samples from both blood, plasma and cerebrospinal fluid and compared the two groups. The only significantly different analytes were plasma lactate dehydrogenase and cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1. No other differences were found between the groups including thyroid markers, markers of neuroendocrine function, inflammatory markers in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, markers of permeability of the blood brain barrier or metabolic markers in blood samples. We found no significant differences in routine blood or cerebrospinal fluid components, neuroendocrine function, neuroinflammation and metabolic markers. The results reflect that the hypocretin system does not seem to play a chronic major role in regulation of these markers. None of the parameters routinely measured in blood in these patients could differentiate between NT1 and non-NT1 disorders besides CSF-hcrt-1.

Repeated polysomnography and multiple sleep latency test in narcolepsy type 1 and other hypersomnolence disorders.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of narcolepsy is based on clinical information, combined with polysomnography (PSG) and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). PSG and the MSLT are moderately reliable at diagnosing narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) but unreliable for diagnosing narcolepsy type 2 (NT2). This is a problem, especially given the increased risk of a false-positive MSLT in the context of circadian misalignment or sleep deprivation, both of which commonly occur in the general population. AIM: We aimed to clarify the accuracy of PSG/MSLT testing in diagnosing NT1 versus controls without sleep disorders. Repeatability and reliability of PSG/MSLT testing and temporal changes in clinical findings of patients with NT1 versus patients with hypersomnolence with normal hypocretin-1 were compared. METHOD: 84 patients with NT1 and 100 patients with non-NT1-hypersomnolence disorders, all with congruent cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 (CSF-hcrt-1) levels, were included. Twenty-five of the 84 NT1 patients and all the hypersomnolence disorder patients underwent a follow-up evaluation consisting of clinical assessment, PSG, and a modified MSLT. An additional 68 controls with no sleep disorders were assessed at baseline. CONCLUSION: Confirming results from previous studies, we found that PSG and our modified MSLT accurately and reliably diagnosed hypocretin-deficient NT1 (accuracy = 0.88, reliability = 0.80). Patients with NT1 had stable clinical and electrophysiological presentations over time that suggested a stable phenotype. In contrast, the PSG/MSLT results of patients with hypersomnolence, and normal CSF-hcrt-1 had poor reliability (0.32) and low repeatability.

Repeated measures of hypocretin-1 in Danish and Italian patients with narcolepsy and in controls.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The assay currently used worldwide to measure cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 (CSF-hcrt-1) for diagnosing narcolepsy uses a competitive radioimmunoassay with polyclonal anti-hcrt-1 antibodies. This assay detects multiple hypocretin-1 immunoreactive species in the CSF that are all derived from full-length hcrt-1. We aimed to revalidate CSF-hcrt-1 cut-offs for narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) diagnosis and to evaluate temporal changes in CSF-hcrt-1 levels in patients suspected of having central hypersomnia. METHOD: We carried out a repeat lumbar puncture with a mean follow-up of 4.0 years, to measure CSF-hcrt-1 in patients suspected of having central hypersomnia in a follow-up study. Data from CSF samples of patients with NT1 and of controls without known hypersomnia, from the Italian-Stanford and Danish populations, were examined using a receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The optimal CSF-hcrt-1 cut-offs for identifying NT1 were 129 pg/ml and 179 pg/ml for the Italian-Stanford and Danish populations, respectively. The sensitivity was 0.93-0.99 and the specificity was 1. Follow-up lumbar puncture measurements of CSF-hcrt-1 were obtained from 73 patients. 30 of 32 patients with low CSF-hcrt-1 levels continued to be categorized as low, with an unaltered diagnosis; two patients showed a marked increase in CSF-hcrt-1, attaining normal values at follow-up. One of these patients relapsed to low CSF-hcrt-1 after follow-up. All 41 patients with normal CSF-hcrt-1 at baseline had normal CSF-hcrt-1 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: CSF-hcrt-1 measurement can provide an accurate test for diagnosing NT1, although it is important to validate the CSF-hcrt-1 cut-off for specific testing locations. Stable CSF-hcrt-1 levels support the already established prognosis of narcolepsy as permanent once the disorder has fully developed.