Neurofilaments in progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

Profiling serum neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in primary progressive multiple sclerosis

This study examined the utility of serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) as biomarkers in primary progressive multiple sclerosis in context with clinical severity, progression, and treatment. Using a single-molecule array (Quanterix), serum protein concentrations were measured from twenty-five participants semiannually for five years. There was no association between levels of either biomarker and disease severity, disease duration, or treatment group. Enrollment sNfL level was not associated with future clinical worsening. Precedent clinical worsening was not associated with last sGFAP measurement. These results suggest a limited role for these biomarkers in primary progressive disease management.

Blood neurofilament light in remote settings: Alternative protocols to support sample collection in challenging pre-analytical conditions

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated alternative pre-analytical handling of blood for neurofilament light (NfL) analysis where resources are limited.

METHOD

Plasma NfL was measured with single molecule array after alternative blood processing procedures: dried plasma spots (DPS), dried blood spots (DBS), and delayed 48-hour centrifugation. These were compared to standardized plasma processing (reference standard [RS]). In a discovery cohort (n = 10) and a confirmatory cohort (n = 21), whole blood was obtained from individuals with unknown clinical etiology. In the confirmatory cohort, delayed centrifugation protocol was paired with either 37°C incubation or sample shaking to test the effect of these parameters.

RESULTS

Delayed centrifugation (R2 = 0.991) and DPS (discovery cohort, R2 = 0.954; confirmatory cohort, DPS: R2 = 0.961) methods were strongly associated with the RS. Delayed centrifugation with higher temperatures (R2 = 0.995) and shaking (R2 = 0.975) did not affect this association. DPS (P < 0.001) returned concentrations considerably lower than the RS.

DISCUSSION

DPS or delayed centrifugation are viable pre-analytical procedures for the accurate quantification of plasma NfL.

Neuronal and glial CSF biomarkers in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurodegenerative disease associated with inflammatory demyelination and astroglial activation, with neuronal and axonal damage as the leading factors of disability. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to determine changes in CSF levels of neuronal and glial biomarkers, including neurofilament light chain (NFL), total tau (t-tau), chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and S100B in various groups of MS (MS versus controls, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) versus controls, CIS versus MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) versus progressive MS (PMS), and MS in relapse versus remission. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we included 64 articles in the meta-analysis, including 4071 subjects. For investigation of sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Meta-analyses were performed for comparisons including at least three individual datasets. NFL, GFAP, t-tau, CHI3L1, and S100B were higher in MS and NFL, t-tau, and CHI3L1 were also elevated in CIS patients than controls. CHI3L1 was the only marker with higher levels in MS than CIS. GFAP levels were higher in PMS versus RRMS, and NFL, t-tau, and CHI3L1 did not differ between different subtypes. Only levels of NFL were higher in patients in relapse than remission. Meta-regression showed influence of sex and disease severity on NFL and t-tau levels, respectively and disease duration on both. Added to the role of these biomarkers in determining prognosis and treatment response, to conclude, they may serve in diagnosis of MS and distinguishing different subtypes.

Facing the urgency of therapies for progressive MS - a Progressive MS Alliance proposal

Therapies for infiltrative inflammation in multiple sclerosis (MS) have advanced greatly, but neurodegeneration and compartmentalized inflammation remain virtually untargeted as in other diseases of the nervous system. Consequently, many therapies are available for the relapsing-remitting form of MS, but the progressive forms remain essentially untreated. The objective of the International Progressive MS Alliance is to expedite the development of effective therapies for progressive MS through new initiatives that foster innovative thinking and concrete advancements. Based on these principles, the Alliance is developing a new funding programme that will focus on experimental medicine trials. Here, we discuss the reasons behind the focus on experimental medicine trials, the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and of the programme, and why we hope to advance therapies while improving the understanding of progression in MS. We are soliciting public and academic feedback, which will help shape the programme and future strategies of the Alliance.

Factors influencing daily treatment choices in multiple sclerosis: practice guidelines, biomarkers and burden of disease

At two meetings of a Central European board of multiple sclerosis (MS) experts in 2018 and 2019 factors influencing daily treatment choices in MS, especially practice guidelines, biomarkers and burden of disease, were discussed. The heterogeneity of MS and the complexity of the available treatment options call for informed treatment choices. However, evidence from clinical trials is generally lacking, particularly regarding sequencing, switches and escalation of drugs. Also, there is a need to identify patients who require highly efficacious treatment from the onset of their disease to prevent deterioration. The recently published European Committee for the Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis/European Academy of Neurology clinical practice guidelines on pharmacological management of MS cover aspects such as treatment efficacy, response criteria, strategies to address suboptimal response and safety concerns and are based on expert consensus statements. However, the recommendations constitute an excellent framework that should be adapted to local regulations, MS center capacities and infrastructure. Further, available and emerging biomarkers for treatment guidance were discussed. Magnetic resonance imaging parameters are deemed most reliable at present, even though complex assessment including clinical evaluation and laboratory parameters besides imaging is necessary in clinical routine. Neurofilament-light chain levels appear to represent the current most promising non-imaging biomarker. Other immunological data, including issues of immunosenescence, will play an increasingly important role for future treatment algorithms. Cognitive impairment has been recognized as a major contribution to MS disease burden. Regular evaluation of cognitive function is recommended in MS patients, although no specific disease-modifying treatment has been defined to date. Finally, systematic documentation of real-life data is recognized as a great opportunity to tackle unresolved daily routine challenges, such as use of sequential therapies, but requires joint efforts across clinics, governments and pharmaceutical companies.