Apolipoprotein E4 Serum Concentration for Increased Sensitivity and Specificity of Diagnosis of Drug Treated Alzheimer’s Disease Patients vs. Drug Treated Parkinson’s Disease Patients vs. Age-matched Normal Controls

Background: Inasmuch as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is difficult to diagnose, patients with suspected dementias are often given FDA approved medications, including donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine HCl, or a combination, prior to diagnosis, and some respond with improved cognition. The present study demonstrates how concentrations of a select group of serum protein biomarkers can provide the basis for sensitive and specific differential diagnosis of AD in drug treated patients. Optimization is addressed by taking into account whether the patients and controls have or do not have increased risk of AD die to the presence or absence of Apolipoprotein E4. Methods: For differential diagnosis of AD, prospectively collected newly drawn blood serum samples were obtained from drug treated Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease patients from a first (39 drug treated DTAD, and 31 age matched normal controls) and second medical center (56 drug treated DTPD, 47 age-matched normal controls). Analytically validated quantitative 2D gel electrophoresis (%CV≤20%; LOD ≥0.5ng/spot, 300μg/ml of blood serum) was employed with patient and control sera for differential diagnosis of AD. Protein quantitation was subjected to statistical analysis by single variable Dot, Box and Whiskers and Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) plots for individual biomarker performance, and multivariate linear discriminant analysis for joint performance of groups of biomarkers. Protein spots were identified and characterized by LC MS/MS of in-gel trypsin digests, amino acid sequence spans of the identified peptides, and the protein spot molecular weights and isoelectric points. Results: The single variable statistical profiles of 58 individual protein biomarker concentrations of the DTAD patient group differed from those of the normal and/or the disease control groups. Multivariate linear discriminant analysis of blood serum concentrations of the 58 proteins distinguished drug treated Alzheimer’s disease (DTAD) patients from drug treated Parkinson’s disease (DTPD) patients and age matched normal controls (collectively not-DTAD, DTAD Sensitivity 87.2%, Not-DTAD Specificity 87.2). Moreover, when the patients and controls were stratified into carriers or non-carriers of Alzheimer’s high risk Apolipoprotein E e4 allele and/or the Apolipoprotein E4 protein, the DTAD, DTPD and control Apo E4 (+) profiles were more divergent from one another than the corresponding Apo E4 (-) profiles. Multivariate stepwise linear discriminant analysis selected 17 of the 58 biomarkers as optimal and complimentary for distinguishing Apo E4 (+) DTAD patients from Apo E4 (+) DTPD and Apo E4 (+) controls (collectively Apo E4 (+) not-DTAD, DTAD Sensitivity 100%, not-DTAD Specificity 100%) and 22 of the 58 biomarkers for distinguishing Apo E4 (-) DTAD patients from Apo E4 (-) DTPD and Apo E4 (-) controls (collectively Apo E4 (-) not-DTAD, DTAD Sensitivity 94.4%, not- DTAD Specificity 94.4%). Only 6 of the selected proteins were common to both the Apo E4 (+) and the Apo E4 (-) discriminant functions. Recombining of the results of Apo E4 (+) and Apo E4 (-) discriminations provided overall sensitivity for total DTAD of 97.4% and specificity for total not-DTAD of 95.7%. Conclusions: These results can form the basis of a blood test for differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease patients already under treatment (DTAD) by anti dementia drugs, including donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine HCl, or a combination thereof. Also, the profile differences and the rise in specificity and sensitivity obtained by handling the Apo E4 (+) and Apo E4 (-) groups separately supports the concept that they are different patient and control populations in terms of the “normal” physiology, the pathophysiology of disease, and the response to drug treatment. Taking that into account enables increased sensitivity and specificity of differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.