High neurofilament levels are associated with clinically definite multiple sclerosis in children and adults with clinically isolated syndrome.
CIS
adults
children
multiple sclerosis
neurofilament light chain
Journal
Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 1477-0970
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9509185
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
19
5
2018
medline:
20
3
2020
entrez:
19
5
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A promising biomarker for axonal damage early in the disease course of multiple sclerosis (MS) is neurofilament light chain (NfL). It is unknown whether NfL has the same predictive value for MS diagnosis in children as in adults. To explore the predictive value of NfL levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for MS diagnosis in paediatric and adult clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients. A total of 88 adult and 65 paediatric patients with a first attack of demyelination were included and followed (mean follow up-time in adults: 62.8 months (standard deviation (SD) ±38.7 months) and 43.8 months (SD ±27.1 months) in children). Thirty control patients were also included. Lumbar puncture was done within 6 months after onset of symptoms. NfL was determined in CSF using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). COX regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) diagnosis. After adjustments for age, oligoclonal bands (OCB), and asymptomatic T2 lesions on baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), increased NfL levels in both paediatric and adult CIS patients were associated with a shorter time to CDMS diagnosis (children HR = 3.7; p = 0.007, adults HR = 2.1; p = 0.032). For CIS patients with a future CDMS diagnosis, children showed higher NfL levels than adults (geometric mean 4888 vs 2156 pg/mL; p = 0.007). CSF NfL levels are associated with CDMS diagnosis in children and adults with CIS. This makes NfL a promising predictive marker for disease course with potential value in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A promising biomarker for axonal damage early in the disease course of multiple sclerosis (MS) is neurofilament light chain (NfL). It is unknown whether NfL has the same predictive value for MS diagnosis in children as in adults.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the predictive value of NfL levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for MS diagnosis in paediatric and adult clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients.
METHODS
A total of 88 adult and 65 paediatric patients with a first attack of demyelination were included and followed (mean follow up-time in adults: 62.8 months (standard deviation (SD) ±38.7 months) and 43.8 months (SD ±27.1 months) in children). Thirty control patients were also included. Lumbar puncture was done within 6 months after onset of symptoms. NfL was determined in CSF using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). COX regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) diagnosis.
RESULTS
After adjustments for age, oligoclonal bands (OCB), and asymptomatic T2 lesions on baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), increased NfL levels in both paediatric and adult CIS patients were associated with a shorter time to CDMS diagnosis (children HR = 3.7; p = 0.007, adults HR = 2.1; p = 0.032). For CIS patients with a future CDMS diagnosis, children showed higher NfL levels than adults (geometric mean 4888 vs 2156 pg/mL; p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION
CSF NfL levels are associated with CDMS diagnosis in children and adults with CIS. This makes NfL a promising predictive marker for disease course with potential value in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29774770
doi: 10.1177/1352458518775303
pmc: PMC6545618
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Neurofilament Proteins
0
neurofilament protein L
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
958-967Références
Neurology. 2006 Oct 10;67(7):1242-9
pubmed: 16914693
Neurology. 2016 Sep 13;87(11):1076-84
pubmed: 27521440
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Dec;10(12):1065-73
pubmed: 22067635
Pediatr Neurol. 2004 Sep;31(3):191-7
pubmed: 15351018
J Immunol Methods. 2010 Jan 31;352(1-2):23-31
pubmed: 19857497
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1965 Mar 31;122:552-68
pubmed: 14313512
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 20;8(9):e75091
pubmed: 24073237
Neurology. 2002 Oct 8;59(7):1006-10
pubmed: 12370453
Neurology. 2016 Aug 30;87(9 Suppl 2):S67-73
pubmed: 27572864
Neurology. 2014 Dec 2;83(23):2140-6
pubmed: 25378667
Ann Neurol. 1999 Nov;46(5):747-54
pubmed: 10553992
J Neuroimmunol. 2014 Jan 15;266(1-2):75-81
pubmed: 24342231
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015 May;2(5):479-91
pubmed: 26000321
Ann Neurol. 1983 Mar;13(3):227-31
pubmed: 6847134
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 28;10(8):e0135886
pubmed: 26317831
Pediatr Neurol. 2016 Apr;57:64-73
pubmed: 26996404
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 21;356(25):2603-13
pubmed: 17582070
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Feb;11(2):157-69
pubmed: 22265211
Neurology. 2017 May 2;88(18):1744-1750
pubmed: 28381515
Eur J Neurol. 2017 May;24(5):703-712
pubmed: 28261960
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Oct;6(10):887-902
pubmed: 17884679
Pediatr Neurol. 2013 Jul;49(1):31-39.e2
pubmed: 23827424
Ann Neurol. 2015 Jul;78(1):3-20
pubmed: 25808056
Brain. 2017 May 1;140(5):1300-1315
pubmed: 28334875
Mult Scler. 2009 May;15(5):627-31
pubmed: 19299440
Arch Neurol. 2005 Jun;62(6):865-70
pubmed: 15956157
Neurology. 2017 Feb 28;88(9):826-831
pubmed: 28148632
Neurology. 2002 Dec 24;59(12):1922-8
pubmed: 12499484
Eur J Neurol. 2017 Feb;24(2):315-321
pubmed: 27862730
Brain. 2003 Feb;126(Pt 2):433-7
pubmed: 12538409
Mult Scler. 2013 Sep;19(10):1261-7
pubmed: 23572237
J Neurol Sci. 2005 Jun 15;233(1-2):183-98
pubmed: 15896809
Ann Neurol. 2017 Jun;81(6):857-870
pubmed: 28512753
Brain. 2009 Dec;132(Pt 12):3392-400
pubmed: 19892770
JAMA Neurol. 2017 Mar 1;74(3):286-292
pubmed: 28055081
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;87(2):126-9
pubmed: 25716934
Mult Scler. 2013 Nov;19(13):1802-9
pubmed: 23695446