Multiple sclerosis disease activity, a multi-biomarker score of disease activity and response to treatment in multiple sclerosis.

Regular assessment of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is required to optimize clinical outcomes. Biomarkers can be a valuable tool for measuring disease activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) if they reflect the pathological processes underlying MS pathogenicity. In this pilot study, we combined multiple biomarkers previously analyzed in RRMS patients into an MS disease activity (MSDA) score to evaluate their ability to predict relapses and treatment response to glatiramer acetate (GA). Response Gene to Complement 32 (RGC-32), FasL, IL-21, SIRT1, phosphorylated SIRT1 (p-SIRT1), and JNK1 p54 levels were used to generate cut-off values for each biomarker. Any value below the cutoff for RGC-32, FasL SIRT1, or p-SIRT1 or above the cutoff for IL-21 or JNK1 p54 was given a +1 value, indicating relapse or lack of response to GA. Any value above the cutoff value for RGC-32, FasL, SIRT1, p-SIRT1 or below that for IL-21 or JNK1 p54 was given a -1 value, indicating clinical stability or response to GA. An MSDA score above +1 indicated a relapse or lack of response to treatment. An MSDA score below -1 indicated clinical stability or response to treatment. Our results showed that the MSDA scores generated using either four or six biomarkers had a higher sensitivity and specificity and significantly correlated with the expanded disability status scale. Although these results suggest that the MSDA test can be useful for monitoring therapeutic response to biologic agents and assessing clinically challenging situations, the present findings need to be confirmed in larger studies.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Tatomir, Anselmo, Boodhoo, Chen, Mekala, Nguyen, Cuevas, Rus and Rus.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.