Neurocognition, sleep, and PET findings in type 2 vs type 1 narcolepsy
Citation Manager Formats

Abstract
Objective To analyze differences in functional brain images collected in patients with type 2 and type 1 narcolepsy compared to normal controls and the relationship among brain images, objective Neuropsychologic tests, and sleep findings.
Methods Data collection included comprehensive clinical investigation, study of sleep/wake with actigraphy, polysomnography, Multiple Sleep Latency Test, human leukocyte antigen typing, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and cognitive tests obtained from 29 patients with type 2 narcolepsy, 104 patients with type 1 narcolepsy, and 26 sex- and age-matched normal control individuals. Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT II) and Wisconsin Card-Sorting Task were performed simultaneously with the FDG-PET examination. After analyses of variance, data between patients with type 1 and type 2 narcolepsy were compared by post hoc analysis, and correlation between functional brain imaging findings and results of neurocognitive tests was obtained.
Results All patients with narcolepsy presented with at least 2 sleep-onset REM periods (SOREMP) and subjective sleepiness. Patients with type 2 narcolepsy compared to patients with type 1 narcolepsy had significantly less SOREMP, longer mean sleep latencies, and lower body mass indexes, apnea-hypopnea indexes, and frequency of human leukocyte antigen DQ-Beta1*0602. In patients with type 2 narcolepsy, FDG-PET studies showed significantly less hypermetabolism in the fusiform gyrus, striatum, hippocampus, thalamus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum than in patients with type 1 narcolepsy, and significantly less hypometabolism in the regions of frontal lobe, posterior cingulum, angular gyrus, and part of the parietal lobe; these changes were associated with fewer errors on the CPT.
Conclusion Young patients with type 2 narcolepsy have fewer clinical impairments and less distinct brain functional abnormalities than patients with type 1 narcolepsy, who are significantly more affected.
Footnotes
↵* These authors contributed equally to this work.
- Received December 3, 2016.
- Accepted in final form January 4, 2018.
- © 2018 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members: Sign in with your AAN member credentials (e-mail or 6-digit Member ID number)
Non-AAN Member subscribers: Sign in with subscriber credentials
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00.
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Related Articles
- No related articles found.