It is clear the MSLT has outlived its purpose as a diagnostic test. First as mentioned above, the MSLT is only reliable to diagnose NT1, i.e., cases with orexin/hypocretin deficiency and typically cataplexy. Yet these cases are the ones where an MSLT is not useful, as a simple blood test (HLA typing, see above) plus clinical acumen is generally sufficient to get a reliable diagnosis. In doubt, CSF hypocretin/orexin can always be measured, as increasingly done in countries outside of the United States. Second, the MSLT not measuring the true problem of a patient with daytime sleepiness and is outdated technologically. Indeed, the MSLT can be confounded by shiftwork, sleep deprivation, and this creates false positive. It is also a test that measures the ability to fall asleep during the daytime, not the inability to stay awake which is the true complain of these patients. It is also an artificial test, not a real-life situation.
Criticism is easy but art is difficult. What do we do if the MSLT is not adequate anymore? Before the MSLT was invented at Stanford, assessment of narcolepsy or hypersomnia involved 24-48 hours of continuous EEG recordings in a sleep laboratory. The MSLT replaced these older tests because it was faster, cheaper and because the primary goal of diagnosis at the time was to identify NT1 patients. One advantage of the older 24-48 h continuous recording tests was that it was possible to objectively evaluate sleep and wake during the day and the night. It is still used in Europe, with the caveat that an exact protocol is not fully agreed upon, with some laboratories mandating subjects to stay in bed trying to sleep as much as possible, while others are asking patients to walk around and come to bed only when they need it.
The solution lies in the explosion of new hardware and software technologies. As an example of software development, our team has created a deep learning program which analyzes nocturnal sleep PSG results and diagnoses NT1 patients as well as the 2-day long MSLT procedure. The program works because it can detect atypical half-dreaming half-awake “states” in patients with hypocretin/orexin deficiency, as predicted from the description of their symptoms. We are also starting to develop artificial intelligent programs that can automatically detect a whole host of sleep problems and predict development of various cardiovascular or neurodegenerative diseases (see Mignotlab.com).
More excitingly however, it is now increasingly possible to monitor sleep using various consumer devices, although those that are currently available do not typically include EEG, the signal needed to identify sleep and study brain activity. We believe that the solution, attainable today, is to build a home monitoring device that can monitor wake and sleep EEG during the day, and breathing, EEG and leg movements during the night. This device would be used for 48 hr., for example during a weekend, and the signal sent to us by internet for automatic analysis. Analysis of sleep and wake at home in real life circumstances would allow sleep doctors to objectively evaluate what is wrong with each patient. Differential patterns of “wakefulness” may also start to be identified, reflecting the fact people cannot concentrate, are sleep deprived, in brain fog, etc. We would also be able to compare daytime alertness to sleep quality the night before, therefore properly classifying patients into subjects who are tired because they don’t have good sleep at night versus patients who seem to need to sleep all the time. This would for the rationale for a truly useful new classification of patients with narcolepsy type 2 or Idiopathic Hypersomnia. The test could also be repeated after treatment, ensuring response to any intervention and better titration of medications.
In parallel with this, new biological tests in sleep medicine are needed. Indeed, one of the other revolutions in medicine today is large scale analytics of metabolites and proteins. As described in my research lab page, we are now developing new diagnostic tests based on the multivariate integration of multiple analytes, notably proteins. These novel biomarkers will be able to differentiate if a specific patient is tired because she or he doesn’t get enough sleep at night and is somehow sleep deprived, or because their endogenous circadian clock is abnormal and they are in permanent jet lag, or because they are hypoxic at night because of sleep apnea. These tests may also be usable to monitor these variables in response to treatment.
We see a future where a combination of biological and home monitoring tests will, with proper analytics, revolutionize sleep medicine and the therapy of patients.
Our current results indicate that NT1 is associated with specialized autoreactive CD4+ T cells recognizing fragments of hypocretin presented by DQ0602, the HLA allele strongly associated with the disease. As the cause of the symptoms is the loss of hypocretin, we believe this population of autoreactive CD4+ T cells is likely within the causal pathway for narcolepsy. Influenza A, notably 2009 pH1N1 is a likely environmental trigger of the autoreactive CD4 + responses. This would explain why cases of narcolepsy in young children (where onset is abrupt), often start in the spring or summer, a few months after a presumed flu infection (that may sometimes be asymptomatic). It would also explain why cases of narcolepsy have been triggered by a specific swine flu vaccine called Pandemrix in 2009-2010.
Finding the causative narcolepsy autoimmune cells is high priority research in our laboratory. Indeed, once identified, we may be able to use their presence in blood as a diagnostic marker for narcolepsy. This would replace measuring CSF hypocretin-1 which requires a lumbar puncture. Second, understanding this process could lead us to modify flu vaccines to prevent not only the flu but the development of narcolepsy. Third, whereas a few years ago researchers believed that the brain and neurons were somewhat protected from autoimmune attacks, this knowledge is now outdated as new immune diseases affecting the brain are now being identified at a rapid pace (see mignotlab.com). Even neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases are also believed to have important immune component. Understanding narcolepsy may thus serve as a model to understand T cell autoimmunity.
Finally, suffice to say that neurological complications following Covid -19 are now well recognized, not unlike what happened after the 1918 flu and encephalitis lethargica or after the 2009 H1N1 swine flu and narcolepsy. In this direction, understanding the interplay of normal and pathological immunity is going to be more and more important to understand and treat cancer, neurodegeneration, and a host of new diseases. Further, vaccines like mRNA vaccines, will become more and more potent and important in the fight against diseases, and with these active therapies will come cross-reactivity and side effects.