Initial biological classification of Lewy body diseases: No consensus on terminology

To the Editor, We read with considerable interest the revised criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by Jack et al.1 This summarizes the long history and multi-staged development and evolution of biological concepts underlying their updated proposal. Given the frequency of Lewy body co-pathology in AD, we agree with the inclusion of alpha synuclein as a biomarker for non-AD co-pathology in AD, especially given its potential impact on the clinical course (e.g., Levin et al.2). Conversely, we also propose to consider amyloid beta and tau as potential co-pathology which may be of relevance in biologically defined Parkinson's disease (PD).3 However, when discussing biomarkers for alpha synuclein,1 the authors state that PD and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) “have recently been re-labeled as NSD” (NSD: “neuronal synuclein disease”), and this is repeated throughout the article. We wish to highlight that the term “NSD” is not currently an accepted designation by the PD or DLB communities. This terminology and concept have not been carefully evaluated in the way AD proposed criteria have. The term NSD and its accompanying integrated staging system have only recently been proposed in a single article,4 and have not been sufficiently considered, vetted, and supported by large segments of the research community dealing with alpha synuclein–related diseases (the community at large currently rather uses the term “Lewy body disorder” or “Lewy body disease” as the umbrella term for PD and DLB5, 6 and we have also argued that the diagnosis of PD should not be restricted to those with Lewy pathology).3 Indeed, this proposal has engendered considerable discussion and controversy in the field, and disagreement has already been registered from researchers in the areas of rapid eye movement behavior disorder,7 dementia with Lewy bodies8 and neuropathology,9 as well as the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.10 We are at the earliest stages in the development of a biological classification/definition of Lewy body diseases, and, until the field can reach greater consensus, we consider that it would be unwise to portray, accept, or endorse the re-labeling of PD and DLB as NSD by the AD community. This is particularly relevant given the proposal for including alpha synuclein seed amplification assays as a biomarker for non-AD co-pathology. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information. Nothing relevant to this letter. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14449
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Initial biological classification of Lewy body diseases: No consensus on terminology

Anthony E. Lang, Daniela Berg, Tiago F. Outeiro, Christine Klein et al.
3 citations
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
0.80
article

Initial biological classification of Lewy body diseases: No consensus on terminology

Anthony E. Lang, Daniela Berg, Tiago F. Outeiro, Christine Klein, Werner Poewe, A. Jon Stoessl, Günter U. Höglinger, Ron Postuma, Charles H. Adler
article en
3 citations

Abstract

To the Editor, We read with considerable interest the revised criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by Jack et al.1 This summarizes the long history and multi-staged development and evolution of biological concepts underlying their updated proposal. Given the frequency of Lewy body co-pathology in AD, we agree with the inclusion of alpha synuclein as a biomarker for non-AD co-pathology in AD, especially given its potential impact on the clinical course (e.g., Levin et al.2). Conversely, we also propose to consider amyloid beta and tau as potential co-pathology which may be of relevance in biologically defined Parkinson's disease (PD).3 However, when discussing biomarkers for alpha synuclein,1 the authors state that PD and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) “have recently been re-labeled as NSD” (NSD: “neuronal synuclein disease”), and this is repeated throughout the article. We wish to highlight that the term “NSD” is not currently an accepted designation by the PD or DLB communities. This terminology and concept have not been carefully evaluated in the way AD proposed criteria have. The term NSD and its accompanying integrated staging system have only recently been proposed in a single article,4 and have not been sufficiently considered, vetted, and supported by large segments of the research community dealing with alpha synuclein–related diseases (the community at large currently rather uses the term “Lewy body disorder” or “Lewy body disease” as the umbrella term for PD and DLB5, 6 and we have also argued that the diagnosis of PD should not be restricted to those with Lewy pathology).3 Indeed, this proposal has engendered considerable discussion and controversy in the field, and disagreement has already been registered from researchers in the areas of rapid eye movement behavior disorder,7 dementia with Lewy bodies8 and neuropathology,9 as well as the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.10 We are at the earliest stages in the development of a biological classification/definition of Lewy body diseases, and, until the field can reach greater consensus, we consider that it would be unwise to portray, accept, or endorse the re-labeling of PD and DLB as NSD by the AD community. This is particularly relevant given the proposal for including alpha synuclein seed amplification assays as a biomarker for non-AD co-pathology. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information. Nothing relevant to this letter. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 21(2)
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA), University of British Columbia (CA), Innsbruck Medical University (AT), University of Toronto (CA), Toronto Western Hospital (CA), German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DE), Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE), Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (DE), Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US), McGill University (CA), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), Newcastle University (GB), University of Lübeck (DE)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
0.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.