Monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis using serum neurofilament light protein

Lenka Novakova, Henrik Zetterberg, Peter Sundström, Markus Axelsson, Mohsen Khademi, Martin Gunnarsson, Clas Malmeström, Anders Svenningsson, Tomas Olsson, Fredrik Piehl, Kaj Blennow, Jan Lycke, Lenka Novakova, Henrik Zetterberg, Peter Sundström, Markus Axelsson, Mohsen Khademi, Martin Gunnarsson, Clas Malmeström, Anders Svenningsson, Tomas Olsson, Fredrik Piehl, Kaj Blennow, Jan Lycke

Abstract

Objective: To examine the effects of disease activity, disability, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on serum neurofilament light (NFL) and the correlation between NFL concentrations in serum and CSF in multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods: NFL concentrations were measured in paired serum and CSF samples (n = 521) from 373 participants: 286 had MS, 45 had other neurologic conditions, and 42 were healthy controls (HCs). In 138 patients with MS, the serum and CSF samples were obtained before and after DMT treatment with a median interval of 12 months. The CSF NFL concentration was measured with the UmanDiagnostics NF-light enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The serum NFL concentration was measured with an in-house ultrasensitive single-molecule array assay.

Results: In MS, the correlation between serum and CSF NFL was r = 0.62 (p < 0.001). Serum concentrations were significantly higher in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (16.9 ng/L) and in patients with progressive MS (23 ng/L) than in HCs (10.5 ng/L, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Treatment with DMT reduced median serum NFL levels from 18.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 12.6-32.7) ng/L to 15.7 (IQR 9.6-22.7) ng/L (p < 0.001). Patients with relapse or with radiologic activity had significantly higher serum NFL levels than those in remission (p < 0.001) or those without new lesions on MRI (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Serum and CSF NFL levels were highly correlated, indicating that blood sampling can replace CSF taps for this particular marker. Disease activity and DMT had similar effects on serum and CSF NFL concentrations. Repeated NFL determinations in peripheral blood for detecting axonal damage may represent new possibilities in MS monitoring.

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.

Figures

Figure 1. Serum NFL concentrations in patients…
Figure 1. Serum NFL concentrations in patients with MS at baseline and follow-up and in HCs
Serum NFL concentrations at baseline and follow-up in patients with MS who remained untreated, in patients with MS who initiated treatment with DMTs, in patients with MS who escalated DMT to more effective therapy, in patients with MS who changed treatment between DMTs of similar efficacy, and in HCs. The figure shows median and 95% confidence interval of serum NFL concentrations. DMT = disease-modifying therapy; HC = healthy control; MS = multiple sclerosis; NFL = neurofilament light.
Figure 2. Serum NFL concentrations in patients…
Figure 2. Serum NFL concentrations in patients with MS with different numbers of Gd-enhancing lesions
Serum NFL concentration in patients with no Gd-enhancing lesions (n = 236) was 16.8 (IQR 10.5–24.6) ng/L, with 1 Gd-enhancing lesion (n = 30) was 21.3 (IQR 12.8–36.5) ng/L, with 2 Gd-enhancing lesions (n = 24) was 31.9 (IQR 14.5–39.9) ng/L in serum, and with ≥3 Gd-enhancing lesions (n = 34) was 31.9 (IQR 17.4–55.6) ng/L. Box indicates IQR; bar indicates median, and whiskers indicate 95% confidence interval. Extreme values are marked with open dots (±1.5 × IQR) or with asterisks (±3 × IQR). IQR = interquartile range; MS = multiple sclerosis; NFL = neurofilament light.
Figure 3. Correlation between serum and CSF…
Figure 3. Correlation between serum and CSF NFL in patients with MS, HCs, and patients with ONDs
Correlation between NFL concentrations in serum and CSF (A) in patients with MS was ρ = 0.620 (95% CI 0.558–0.675, p < 0.001), (B) in HCs was ρ = 0.385 (95% CI 0.092–0.616, p < 0.001), and (C) in patients with OND was ρ = 0.740 (95% CI 0.571–0.849, p < 0.001). CI = confidence interval; HC = healthy control; MS = multiple sclerosis; NFL = neurofilament light; OND = other neurological disorder or symptom.
Figure 4. ROC curve showing specificity and…
Figure 4. ROC curve showing specificity and sensitivity of NFL in serum and CSF for disease activity
ROC curve with AUC for NFL in serum and CSF indicating specificity and sensitivity to discriminate patients with MS with disease activity from patients with MS without disease activity. AUC for serum NFL was 0.663 (95% CI 0.591–0.735, 80% specificity and 45% sensitivity) and for CSF NFL was 0.774 (95% CI 0.714–0.835, 75% specificity and 67% sensitivity). AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; MS = multiple sclerosis; NFL = neurofilament light; ROC = receiver operating characteristic.

References

    1. Norgren N, Rosengren L, Stigbrand T. Elevated neurofilament levels in neurological diseases. Brain Res 2003;987:25–31.
    1. Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, Rudick R, Mork S, Bo L. Axonal transection in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998;338:278–285.
    1. Axelsson M, Malmestrom C, Gunnarsson M, et al. . Immunosuppressive therapy reduces axonal damage in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2014;20:43–50.
    1. Gunnarsson M, Malmestrom C, Axelsson M, et al. . Axonal damage in relapsing multiple sclerosis is markedly reduced by natalizumab. Ann Neurol 2011;69:83–89.
    1. Lycke JN, Karlsson JE, Andersen O, Rosengren LE. Neurofilament protein in cerebrospinal fluid: a potential marker of activity in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;64:402–404.
    1. Malmestrom C, Haghighi S, Rosengren L, Andersen O, Lycke J. Neurofilament light protein and glial fibrillary acidic protein as biological markers in MS. Neurology 2003;61:1720–1725.
    1. Novakova L, Axelsson M, Khademi M, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of inflammation and degeneration as measures of fingolimod efficacy in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2017;23:62–71.
    1. Salzer J, Svenningsson A, Sundstrom P. Neurofilament light as a prognostic marker in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010;16:287–292.
    1. Martinez MA, Olsson B, Bau L, et al. . Glial and neuronal markers in cerebrospinal fluid predict progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21:550–561.
    1. Rissin DM, Kan CW, Campbell TG, et al. . Single-molecule enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detects serum proteins at subfemtomolar concentrations. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:595–599.
    1. Kuhle J, Barro C, Andreasson U, et al. . Comparison of three analytical platforms for quantification of the neurofilament light chain in blood samples: ELISA, electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and Simoa. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1655–1661.
    1. Gisslen M, Price RW, Andreasson U, et al. . Plasma concentration of the neurofilament light protein (NFL) is a biomarker of CNS injury in HIV infection: a cross-sectional study. EBioMedicine 2016;3:135–140.
    1. Shahim P, Gren M, Liman V, et al. . Serum neurofilament light protein predicts clinical outcome in traumatic brain injury. Sci Rep 2016;6:36791.
    1. Shahim PZH, Tegner Y, Blennow K. Serum neurofilament light as a biomarker for mild traumatic brain injury in contact sports. Neurology 2017;88:1788–1794.
    1. Shahim P, Tegner Y, Gustafsson B, et al. . Neurochemical aftermath of repetitive mild traumatic brain injury. JAMA Neurol 2016;73:1308–1315.
    1. Bergman J, Dring A, Zetterberg H, et al. . Neurofilament light in CSF and serum is a sensitive marker for axonal white matter injury in MS. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2016;3:e271.
    1. Cotton F, Weiner HL, Jolesz FA, Guttmann CR. MRI contrast uptake in new lesions in relapsing-remitting MS followed at weekly intervals. Neurology 2003;60:640–646.
    1. Teunissen C, Menge T, Altintas A, et al. . Consensus definitions and application guidelines for control groups in cerebrospinal fluid biomarker studies in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2013;19:1802–1809.
    1. Sandberg L, Bistrom M, Salzer J, Vagberg M, Svenningsson A, Sundstrom P. Vitamin D and axonal injury in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2016;22:1027–1031.
    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444–1452.
    1. Roxburgh RH, Seaman SR, Masterman T, et al. . Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score: using disability and disease duration to rate disease severity. Neurology 2005;64:1144–1151.
    1. McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. . Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–127.
    1. Giovannoni G, Tomic D, Bright JR, Havrdova E. “No evident disease activity”: the use of combined assessments in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2017;23:1179–1187.
    1. Wiendl H, Meuth SG. Pharmacological approaches to delaying disability progression in patients with multiple sclerosis. Drugs 2015;75:947–977.
    1. Teunissen CE, Petzold A, Bennett JL, et al. . A consensus protocol for the standardization of cerebrospinal fluid collection and biobanking. Neurology 2009;73:1914–1922.
    1. Rohrer JD, Woollacott IO, Dick KM, et al. . Serum neurofilament light chain protein is a measure of disease intensity in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2016;87:1329–1336.
    1. Vagberg M, Norgren N, Dring A, et al. . Levels and age dependency of neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in healthy individuals and their relation to the brain parenchymal fraction. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135886.
    1. Burman J, Zetterberg H, Fransson M, Loskog AS, Raininko R, Fagius J. Assessing tissue damage in multiple sclerosis: a biomarker approach. Acta Neurol Scand 2014;130:81–89.
    1. Novakova L, Axelsson M, Khademi M, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers as a measure of disease activity and treatment efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurochem 2017;141:296–304.
    1. Calabrese M, Magliozzi R, Ciccarelli O, Geurts JJ, Reynolds R, Martin R. Exploring the origins of grey matter damage in multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurosci 2015;16:147–158.
    1. Bonnan M, Marasescu R, Demasles S, Krim E, Barroso B. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) in MS should include CSF biology: towards a “disease-free status score.” Mult Scler Relat Disord 2017;11:51–55.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever