Functional connectivity in multiple sclerosis modelled as connectome stability: A 5-year follow-up study.
Multiple sclerosis
cohort studies
connectome
functional neuroimaging
longitudinal studies
neuroimaging
neuropsychological tests
Journal
Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 1477-0970
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9509185
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
15
7
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
14
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Brain functional connectivity (FC) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is abnormal compared to healthy controls (HCs). More longitudinal studies in MS are needed to evaluate whether FC stability is clinically relevant. To compare functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-based FC between MS and HC, and to determine the relationship between longitudinal FC changes and structural brain damage, cognitive performance and physical disability. T1-weighted MPRAGE and resting-state fMRI (1.5T) were acquired from 70 relapsing-remitting MS patients and 94 matched HC at baseline (mean months since diagnosis 14.0 ± 11) and from 60 MS patients after 5 years. Independent component analysis and network modelling were used to measure longitudinal FC stability and cross-sectional comparisons with HC. Linear mixed models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to calculate correlations. At baseline, patients with MS showed FC abnormalities both within networks and in single connections compared to HC. Longitudinal analyses revealed functional stability and no significant relationships with clinical disability, cognitive performance, lesion or brain volume. FC abnormalities occur already at the first decade of MS, yet we found no relevant clinical correlations for these network deviations. Future large-scale longitudinal fMRI studies across a range of MS subtypes and outcomes are required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Brain functional connectivity (FC) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is abnormal compared to healthy controls (HCs). More longitudinal studies in MS are needed to evaluate whether FC stability is clinically relevant.
OBJECTIVE
To compare functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-based FC between MS and HC, and to determine the relationship between longitudinal FC changes and structural brain damage, cognitive performance and physical disability.
METHODS
T1-weighted MPRAGE and resting-state fMRI (1.5T) were acquired from 70 relapsing-remitting MS patients and 94 matched HC at baseline (mean months since diagnosis 14.0 ± 11) and from 60 MS patients after 5 years. Independent component analysis and network modelling were used to measure longitudinal FC stability and cross-sectional comparisons with HC. Linear mixed models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to calculate correlations.
RESULTS
At baseline, patients with MS showed FC abnormalities both within networks and in single connections compared to HC. Longitudinal analyses revealed functional stability and no significant relationships with clinical disability, cognitive performance, lesion or brain volume.
CONCLUSION
FC abnormalities occur already at the first decade of MS, yet we found no relevant clinical correlations for these network deviations. Future large-scale longitudinal fMRI studies across a range of MS subtypes and outcomes are required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34259578
doi: 10.1177/13524585211030212
pmc: PMC8961247
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
532-540Références
Mult Scler. 2018 Apr;24(4):459-471
pubmed: 28294693
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2015 Mar 29;1(1):103-11
pubmed: 27239497
Heliyon. 2020 Sep 15;6(9):e04854
pubmed: 32995596
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Nov 22;108(47):19066-71
pubmed: 22065778
Neuroimage. 2015 Nov 1;121:29-38
pubmed: 26208872
Front Neurol. 2020 Mar 06;11:147
pubmed: 32210905
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 May 29;360(1457):1001-13
pubmed: 16087444
Neurology. 2010 Apr 20;74(16):1246-7
pubmed: 20404304
Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Mar;17(3):173-184
pubmed: 33437067
Front Neurol. 2018 Oct 11;9:828
pubmed: 30364281
Twin Res Hum Genet. 2012 Jun;15(3):442-52
pubmed: 22856377
Curr Opin Neurol. 2002 Jun;15(3):239-45
pubmed: 12045719
Nat Neurosci. 2017 Apr;20(4):513-515
pubmed: 28218917
Mult Scler. 2020 May;26(6):645-658
pubmed: 30887875
Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1589-601
pubmed: 12948714
F1000Res. 2017 Oct 12;6:1828
pubmed: 29093810
Mult Scler. 2012 Sep;18(9):1251-8
pubmed: 22307385
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:260-72
pubmed: 25595500
Hum Brain Mapp. 2020 Feb 15;41(3):697-709
pubmed: 31652017
Front Neurol. 2015 Apr 14;6:82
pubmed: 25926813
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Mar 30;16:369-382
pubmed: 28861338
Front Neurosci. 2017 Mar 13;11:115
pubmed: 28348512
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 4;106(31):13040-5
pubmed: 19620724
Mult Scler. 2014 Jul;20(8):1050-7
pubmed: 24326671
J Neurosci. 2017 Jul 5;37(27):6394-6407
pubmed: 28546311
Brain Imaging Behav. 2018 Jun;12(3):640-652
pubmed: 28444556
Neurology. 2010 Apr 20;74(16):1252-9
pubmed: 20404306
Mult Scler. 2012 Jun;18(6):891-8
pubmed: 22190573
Front Neurol. 2019 Apr 30;10:450
pubmed: 31114541
Neurology. 2012 Oct 2;79(14):1449-57
pubmed: 22955126
JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jul 1;75(7):749-751
pubmed: 29799905