Serum neurofilament light chain in myasthenia gravis subgroups: An exploratory cohort and case-Control study.
antibody status
biomarker
disease severity
myasthenia gravis
serum neurofilament light chain
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
28
09
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
entrez:
30
1
2023
pubmed:
31
1
2023
medline:
31
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the association of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) with neuromuscular destruction and disease severity in the serum of patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). Sera from 134 patients with MG with varying degrees of disease severity and autoantibody (Abs) status were analyzed and compared to controls in a cross-sectional design. Prospectively, we additionally measured serum NfL (sNfl) levels in patients with MG longitudinally for up to 3 years. Based on linear regression, differences between patients and controls were assessed. With correlation coefficients and mixed linear regression, the association among sNfl levels, socio-demographics, disease activity (Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scale), Abs-status (acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR-Abs), muscle-specific receptor tyrosine kinase antibody (MuSK-Abs), lipoprotein-related protein 4 (LRP4), and seronegative), Abs titer, treatment regime (pyridostigmine, steroids, and immunosuppressive therapies), and thymectomy were investigated. sNfl levels were higher in patients with MG compared to controls (median: 11.2 vs. 7.88), where sNfl levels were highest in anti-AChR-Abs positive patients (median 12.6), followed by anti-MuSK-Abs positive, anti-LRP4-Abs positive, and seronegative patients. Adjusting for age and sex, sNfl levels of patients with MG were on average 35% higher compared to controls (35.1, 95% CI: 8.4;68.3) and highest for patients with seronegative MG (44.35; 95% CI 16.47; 78.90). We found no relevant relationship between individual changes in sNfl and changes in QMG and MG-ADL scores. sNfl levels are higher in patients with MG than in controls but were not consistently associated with clinical severity. Thus, sNfl is not a suitable biomarker to monitor individual disease progression in patients with MG.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to evaluate the association of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) with neuromuscular destruction and disease severity in the serum of patients with myasthenia gravis (MG).
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
Sera from 134 patients with MG with varying degrees of disease severity and autoantibody (Abs) status were analyzed and compared to controls in a cross-sectional design. Prospectively, we additionally measured serum NfL (sNfl) levels in patients with MG longitudinally for up to 3 years. Based on linear regression, differences between patients and controls were assessed. With correlation coefficients and mixed linear regression, the association among sNfl levels, socio-demographics, disease activity (Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scale), Abs-status (acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR-Abs), muscle-specific receptor tyrosine kinase antibody (MuSK-Abs), lipoprotein-related protein 4 (LRP4), and seronegative), Abs titer, treatment regime (pyridostigmine, steroids, and immunosuppressive therapies), and thymectomy were investigated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
sNfl levels were higher in patients with MG compared to controls (median: 11.2 vs. 7.88), where sNfl levels were highest in anti-AChR-Abs positive patients (median 12.6), followed by anti-MuSK-Abs positive, anti-LRP4-Abs positive, and seronegative patients. Adjusting for age and sex, sNfl levels of patients with MG were on average 35% higher compared to controls (35.1, 95% CI: 8.4;68.3) and highest for patients with seronegative MG (44.35; 95% CI 16.47; 78.90). We found no relevant relationship between individual changes in sNfl and changes in QMG and MG-ADL scores.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
sNfl levels are higher in patients with MG than in controls but were not consistently associated with clinical severity. Thus, sNfl is not a suitable biomarker to monitor individual disease progression in patients with MG.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36712429
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1056322
pmc: PMC9875128
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1056322Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Stascheit, Aigner, Mergenthaler, Hotter, Hoffmann, Lehnerer, Meisel and Meisel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CM was employed by Charité Vivantes GmbH. FS received speaking honoria and honoria for attendance at advisory boards from Alexion Pharmaceuticals. PM receives funding from the Einstein Foundation Berlin, and is supported by grants from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the Volkswagen Foundation, and the Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung, and is on the board of HealthNextGen Inc. and has equity interest in the company. BH received financial research support by argnx. SH received speaker honoraria and honoria for attendance at advisory boards from Alexion Pharmaceuticals and argnx. SL reports speaker honoraria and honoraria for attendance at advisory boards from Alexion Pharmaceuticals. AM received speaker honoraria from Alexion, GRIFOLS and Hormosan. He received honoraria from Alexion, MorphoSys and Vitaccess for consulting services and financial research support from Octapharma and Alexion and is chairman of the medical advisory board of the German Myasthenia Gravis Society. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2012 Jun;13(4):201-5
pubmed: 22622164
J Neurol. 2000 Apr;247(4):286-90
pubmed: 10836621
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013 Jan;1835(1):100-9
pubmed: 23123827
J Clin Invest. 2013 Dec;123(12):5190-202
pubmed: 24200689
Brain. 2018 Aug 1;141(8):2382-2391
pubmed: 29860296
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 Feb;1413(1):126-135
pubmed: 29377176
J Neuroinflammation. 2022 Apr 12;19(1):89
pubmed: 35413850
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 20;8(9):e75091
pubmed: 24073237
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018 Nov;56:98-101
pubmed: 29937097
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Jun;28(6):595-9
pubmed: 20495550
Neuromuscul Disord. 2020 Feb;30(2):111-119
pubmed: 32007304
Nat Rev Immunol. 2002 Oct;2(10):797-804
pubmed: 12360217
Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2009 Feb;35(1):103-10
pubmed: 19187062
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;90(2):157-164
pubmed: 30309882
J Neurol. 2022 Jul;269(7):3904-3911
pubmed: 35389099
Neurology. 2000 Jul 12;55(1):16-23
pubmed: 10891897
Exp Neurol. 2015 Aug;270:66-71
pubmed: 25783660
J Neurol. 2011 May;258(5):746-52
pubmed: 21088848
Lancet Neurol. 2022 Mar;21(3):246-257
pubmed: 35182510
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):418-22
pubmed: 21387385
Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 10;11(1):812
pubmed: 32041951
Curr Opin Neurol. 2013 Oct;26(5):459-65
pubmed: 23945282
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016 Oct 1;54(10):1655-61
pubmed: 27071153
Brain. 2022 Sep 09;:
pubmed: 36083979
Neurology. 2016 Sep 27;87(13):1329-36
pubmed: 27581216
Brain. 2008 Jul;131(Pt 7):1940-52
pubmed: 18515870
Brain Behav. 2021 Jul;11(7):e02203
pubmed: 34075720
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375(26):2570-2581
pubmed: 28029925
Front Neurol. 2019 Jan 18;9:1167
pubmed: 30713520
Neurology. 1999 Apr 22;52(7):1487-9
pubmed: 10227640
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2020 Nov;7(11):2213-2220
pubmed: 33030817
J Neurol. 2016 Aug;263(8):1473-94
pubmed: 26886206
Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2012 Feb;38(1):61-71
pubmed: 21450050
J Intern Med. 2014 Jan;275(1):12-26
pubmed: 24215230
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Aug;16(8):601-609
pubmed: 28601473
Acta Neuropathol. 2022 Nov;144(5):1005-1025
pubmed: 36074148
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 01;76(9):1035-1048
pubmed: 31206160
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2019 Jun;24(2):187-194
pubmed: 30973667
Curr Opin Neurol. 2012 Oct;25(5):523-9
pubmed: 22892950
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2016 May;19(3):177-81
pubmed: 26870889
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1995;363:207-9
pubmed: 7618525
Neurology. 2018 Feb 6;90(6):e518-e524
pubmed: 29321234
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36
pubmed: 26376969
Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2019 Apr;45(3):291-304
pubmed: 29908069
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-536
pubmed: 34146511
Nat Rev Neurol. 2018 Oct;14(10):577-589
pubmed: 30171200
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30
pubmed: 31048702
Muscle Nerve. 2014 Apr;49(4):483-6
pubmed: 23835683
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2018 Sep;23(3):174-177
pubmed: 29974556
J Neurol. 2018 Mar;265(3):510-521
pubmed: 29322259
Brain. 2012 Apr;135(Pt 4):1081-101
pubmed: 22396395
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1973 Apr;36(2):244-54
pubmed: 4708458
Acta Neuropathol. 2020 Jun;139(6):1119-1122
pubmed: 32157386
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021 Aug;31(8):965-968
pubmed: 34320716
Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(1):130-4
pubmed: 24112557
Neurology. 2005 Jun 14;64(11):1968-70
pubmed: 15955957
Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2019 Mar;225(3):e13195
pubmed: 30269419
Ann Neurol. 2017 Jun;81(6):857-870
pubmed: 28512753
J Neuroinflammation. 2018 Oct 22;15(1):294
pubmed: 30348195
Neuromuscul Disord. 2019 May;29(5):381-387
pubmed: 31029532
Neurology. 2018 Apr 3;90(14):e1231-e1239
pubmed: 29514947
Front Neurol. 2021 Sep 13;12:723009
pubmed: 34589050
Eur J Cell Biol. 1985 Jul;38(1):123-33
pubmed: 3896807