A Retrospective Cohort Study of a Newly Proposed Criteria for Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) Vol. 14; no. 21; p. 2424
• Main Authors: Nonaka, Toshiaki, Ae, Ryusuke, Kosami, Koki, Tange, Hiroya, Kaneko, Miho, Nakagaki, Takehiro, Hamaguchi, Tsuyoshi, Sanjo, Nobuo, Nakamura, Yoshikazu, Kitamoto, Tetsuyuki, Kuroiwa, Yoshiyuki, Kasuga, Kensaku, Doyu, Manabu, Tanaka, Fumiaki, Abe, Koji, Murayama, Shigeo, Yabe, Ichiro, Mochizuki, Hideki, Matsushita, Takuya, Murai, Hiroyuki, Aoki, Masashi, Fujita, Koji, Harada, Masafumi, Takao, Masaki, Tsukamoto, Tadashi, Iwasaki, Yasushi, Yamada, Masahito, Mizusawa, Hidehiro, Satoh, Katsuya, Nishida, Noriyuki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 30.10.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: biomarker; Biomarkers; Dementia; diagnostic criteria; Disease; Electroencephalography; Health surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mutation; Nervous system diseases; prion disease; Proteins; real-time quaking-induced conversion; sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease; Statistical analysis; Japan
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14212424

Background/Objectives: Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (sCJD) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder traditionally diagnosed based on the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria in 1998. Recently, Hermann et al. proposed updated diagnostic criteria incorporating advanced biomarkers to enhance early detection of sCJD. This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Hermann’s criteria compared with those of the WHO criteria in a large cohort of patients suspected of prion disease in Japan. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the new criteria using data of 2004 patients with suspected prion disease registered with the Japanese Prion Disease Surveillance (JPDS) between January 2009 and May 2023. Patients with genetic or acquired prion diseases or incomplete data necessary for the diagnostic criteria were excluded, resulting in 786 eligible cases. The sensitivity and specificity of the WHO and Hermann’s criteria were calculated by comparing diagnoses with those made by the JPDS Committee. Results: Of the 786 included cases, Hermann’s criteria helped identify 572 probable cases compared with 448 by the WHO criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the WHO criteria were 96.4% and 96.6%, respectively. Hermann’s criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 99.3% and a specificity of 95.2%, indicating higher sensitivity but slightly lower specificity. Fifty-five cases were classified as “definite” by both criteria. Conclusions: The findings suggest that Hermann’s criteria could offer improved sensitivity for detecting sCJD, potentially reducing diagnostic oversight. However, caution is advised in clinical practice to avoid misdiagnosis, particularly in treatable neurological diseases, by ensuring thorough exclusion of other potential conditions.