Dataset Information

Neurofilaments in progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neurofilament proteins have been extensively studied in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, where they are promising biomarkers of disease activity and treatment response. Their role in progressive multiple sclerosis, where there is a particularly urgent need for improved biomarkers, is less clear. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarise the literature on neurofilament light and heavy in progressive multiple sclerosis, addressing key questions.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus identified 355 potential sources. 76 relevant sources were qualitatively reviewed using QUADAS-2 criteria, and 17 were identified as at low risk of bias. We summarise the findings from all relevant sources, and separately from the 17 high-quality studies.

Results

Differences in neurofilament light between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis appear to be explained by differences in covariates. Neurofilament light is consistently associated with current inflammatory activity and future brain atrophy in progressive multiple sclerosis, and is consistently shown to be a marker of treatment response with immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies. Associations with current or future disability are inconsistent, and there is no evidence of NFL being a responsive marker of purportedly neuroprotective treatments. Evidence on neurofilament heavy is more limited and inconsistent.

Conclusions

Neurofilament light has shown consistent utility as a biomarker of neuroinflammation, future brain atrophy and immunosuppressive treatment response at a group level. Neither neurofilament light or heavy has shown a consistent treatment response to neuroprotective disease-modifying therapies, which will require further data from successful randomised controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: Williams T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357650 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesImproved biomarkers of neuroprotective treatment are needed in progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) to facilitate more efficient phase 2 trial design. The MS-STAT randomized controlled trial supported the neuroprotective potential of high-dose simvastatin in secondary progressive MS (SPMS). Here, we analyze serum from the MS-STAT trial to assess the extent to which neurofilament light (NfL) and neurofilament heavy (NfH), both promising biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury, may act as biomarkers of simvastatin treatment in SPMS.MethodsThe MS-STAT trial randomized patients to 80 mg simvastatin or placebo. Serum was analyzed for NfL and NfH using Simoa technology. We used linear mixed models to investigate the treatment effects of simvastatin compared with placebo on NfL and NfH. Additional models examined the relationships between neurofilaments and MRI and clinical measures of disease severity.ResultsA total of 140 patients with SPMS were included. There was no evidence for a simvastatin treatment effect on NfL or NfH: compared with placebo, NfL was 1.2% lower (95% CI 10.6% lower to 9.2% higher; p = 0.820) and NfH was 0.4% lower (95% CI 18.4% lower to 21.6% higher; p = 0.969) in the simvastatin treatment group. Secondary analyses suggested that higher NfL was associated with greater subsequent whole brain atrophy, higher T2 lesion volume, and more new/enlarging T2 lesions in the previous 12 months, as well as greater physical disability. There were no significant associations between NfH and MRI or clinical variables.DiscussionWe found no evidence of a simvastatin treatment effect on serum neurofilaments. While confirmation of the neuroprotective benefits of simvastatin is awaited from the ongoing phase 3 study (NCT03387670), our results suggest that treatments capable of slowing the rate of whole brain atrophy in SPMS, such as simvastatin, may act via mechanisms largely independent of neuroaxonal injury, as quantified by NfL. This has important implications for the design of future phase 2 clinical trials in PMS.Trial registration informationMS-STAT: NCT00647348.Classification of evidenceThis study provides class I evidence that simvastatin treatment does not have a large impact on either serum NfL or NfH, as quantified in this study, in SPMS.

Project description:Background: Over the past two decades, various novel disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been approved. However, there is high variability in the patient response to the available medications, which is hypothesized to be partly attributed to genetics. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the current literature on the pharmacogenomics of MS therapy. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE database searching for articles investigating a role of genetic variation in response to disease-modifying MS treatments, published in the English language up to October 9th, 2018. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were applied. Studies were included if they investigated response or nonresponse to MS treatment defined as relapse rate, by expanded disability status scale score or based on magnetic resonance imaging. The following data were extracted: first author's last name, year of publication, PMID number, sample size, ethnicity of patients, method, genes, and polymorphisms tested, outcome, significant associations with corresponding P-values and confidence intervals, response criteria, and duration of the follow-up period. Results: Overall, 48 articles published up to October 2018, evaluating response to interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, mitoxantrone, and natalizumab, met our inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Among those, we identified 42 (87.5%) candidate gene studies and 6 (12.5%) genome-wide association studies. Existing pharmacogenomic evidence is mainly based on the results of individual studies, or on results of multiple studies, which often lack consistency. In recent years, hypothesis-free approaches identified novel candidate genes that remain to be validated. Various study designs, including the definition of clinical response, duration of the follow-up period, and methodology as well as moderate sample sizes, likely contributed to discordances between studies. However, some of the significant associations were identified in the same genes, or in the genes involved in the same biological pathways. Conclusions: At the moment, there is no available clinically actionable pharmacogenomic biomarker that would enable more personalized treatment of MS. More large-scale studies with uniform design are needed to identify novel and validate existing pharmacogenomics findings. Furthermore, studies investigating associations between rare variants and treatment response in MS patients, using next-generation sequencing technologies are warranted.