-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Ocrelizumab is a humanised anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody developed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ocrelizumab is a humanised anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody developed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2017 for using in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Ocrelizumab is the only disease-modifying therapy (DMT) approved for PPMS. In November 2017, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also approved ocrelizumab as the first drug for people with early PPMS. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the benefits, harms, and tolerability of ocrelizumab in people with MS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits, harms, and tolerability of ocrelizumab in people with RRMS and PPMS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and two trials registers on 8 October 2021. We screened reference lists, contacted experts, and contacted the main authors of studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults diagnosed with RRMS or PPMS according to the McDonald criteria, comparing ocrelizumab alone or associated with other medications, at the approved dose of 600 mg every 24 weeks for any duration, versus placebo or any other active drug therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Four RCTs met our selection criteria. The overall population included 2551 participants; 1370 treated with ocrelizumab 600 mg and 1181 controls. Among the controls, 298 participants received placebo and 883 received interferon beta-1a. The treatment duration was 24 weeks in one study, 96 weeks in two studies, and at least 120 weeks in one study. One study was at high risk of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel; all four studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. For RRMS, compared with interferon beta-1a, ocrelizumab was associated with: 1. lower relapse rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.73; 2 studies, 1656 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 2. a lower number of participants with disability progression (hazard ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.84; 2 studies, 1656 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. little to no difference in the number of participants with any adverse event (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 1651 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 4. little to no difference in the number of participants with any serious adverse event (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.11; 2 studies, 1651 participants; low-certainty evidence); 5. a lower number of participants experiencing treatment discontinuation caused by adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; 2 studies, 1651 participants; low-certainty evidence); 6. a lower number of participants with gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.35; 2 studies, 1656 participants; low-certainty evidence); 7. a lower number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on MRI (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.69; 2 studies, 1656 participants; low-certainty evidence) at 96 weeks. For PPMS, compared with placebo, ocrelizumab was associated with: 1. a lower number of participants with disability progression (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.98; 1 study, 731 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. a higher number of participants with any adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11; 1 study, 725 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 3. little to no difference in the number of participants with any serious adverse event (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; 1 study, 725 participants; low-certainty evidence); 4. little to no difference in the number of participants experiencing treatment discontinuation caused by adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.75; 1 study, 725 participants; low-certainty evidence) for at least 120 weeks. There were no data for number of participants with gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on MRI and number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on MRI.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For people with RRMS, ocrelizumab probably results in a large reduction in relapse rate and little to no difference in adverse events when compared with interferon beta-1a at 96 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). Ocrelizumab may result in a large reduction in disability progression, treatment discontinuation caused by adverse events, number of participants with gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on MRI, and number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on MRI, and may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence). For people with PPMS, ocrelizumab probably results in a higher rate of adverse events when compared with placebo for at least 120 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). Ocrelizumab may result in a reduction in disability progression and little to no difference in serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation caused by adverse events (low-certainty evidence). Ocrelizumab was well tolerated clinically; the most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions and nasopharyngitis, and urinary tract and upper respiratory tract infections.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Gadolinium; Humans; Interferon beta-1a; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Recurrence
PubMed: 35583174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013247.pub2 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2022: The positive implications of using free light chains in diagnosing multiple sclerosis have increasingly gained considerable interest in medical research and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: The positive implications of using free light chains in diagnosing multiple sclerosis have increasingly gained considerable interest in medical research and the scientific community. It is often presumed that free light chains, particularly kappa and lambda free light chains, are of practical use and are associated with a higher probability of obtaining positive results compared to oligoclonal bands. The primary purpose of the current paper was to conduct a systematic review to assess the up-to-date methods for diagnosing multiple sclerosis using kappa and lambda free light chains. : An organized literature search was performed across four electronic sources, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, and MEDLINE. The sources analyzed in this systematic review and meta-analysis comprise randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, controlled clinical trials, and systematic reviews. : The review contains 116 reports that includes 1204 participants. The final selection includes a vast array of preexisting literature concerning the study topic: 35 randomized clinical trials, 21 prospective cohort studies, 19 retrospective studies, 22 controlled clinical trials, and 13 systematic reviews. : The incorporated literature sources provided integral insights into the benefits of free light chain diagnostics for multiple sclerosis. It was also evident that the use of free light chains in the diagnosis of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and multiple sclerosis is relatively fast and inexpensive in comparison to other conventional state-of-the-art diagnostic methods, e.g., using oligoclonal bands (OCBs).
Topics: Humans; Oligoclonal Bands; Multiple Sclerosis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Immunoglobulin kappa-Chains; Immunoglobulin lambda-Chains; Immunoglobulin Light Chains; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36363469
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58111512 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Jan 2016Depression and anxiety are common in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), and adversely affect fatigue, medication adherence, and quality of life. Though effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are common in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), and adversely affect fatigue, medication adherence, and quality of life. Though effective treatments for depression and anxiety exist in the general population, their applicability in the MS population has not been definitively established.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the overall effect of psychological and pharmacological treatments for depression or anxiety in persons with MS.
METHODS
We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases using systematic review methodology from database inception until March 25, 2015. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. We included controlled clinical trials reporting on the effect of pharmacological or psychological interventions for depression or anxiety in a sample of persons with MS. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and pooled using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 1753 abstracts screened, 21 articles reporting on 13 unique clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Depression severity improved in nine psychological trials of depression treatment (N=307; SMD: -0.45 (95%CI: -0.74, -0.16)). The severity of depression also improved in three pharmacological trials of depression treatment (SMD: -0.63 (N=165; 95%CI: -1.07, -0.20)). For anxiety, only a single trial examined psychological therapy for injection phobia and reported no statistically significant improvement.
CONCLUSION
Pharmacological and psychological treatments for depression were effective in reducing depressive symptoms in MS. The data are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of treatments for anxiety.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anxiety Disorders; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26856938
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.10.004 -
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics Mar 2022Lipoic acid (LA) is an endogenous antioxidant that exists widely in nature. Supplementation with LA is a promising approach to improve the outcomes of patients with... (Review)
Review
Lipoic acid (LA) is an endogenous antioxidant that exists widely in nature. Supplementation with LA is a promising approach to improve the outcomes of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of both in vitro and in vivo studies describing the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and mechanism of LA in MS-related experiments and clinical trials. A total of 516 records were identified by searching five databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Overall, we included 20 studies reporting LA effects in cell and mouse models of MS and 12 studies reporting LA effects in patients with MS. Briefly, cell experiments revealed that LA protected neurons by inhibiting the expression of inflammatory mediators and activities of immune cells. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis mouse experiments demonstrated that LA consistently reduced the number of infiltrating immune cells in the central nervous system and decreased the clinical disability scores. Patients with MS showed relatively stable Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and better walking performance with few adverse events after the oral administration of LA. Notably, heterogeneity of this evidence existed among modeling methods, LA usage, MS stage, and trial duration. In conclusion, this review provides evidence for the anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects of LA in both in vitro and in vivo experiments; therefore, patients with MS may benefit from LA administration. Whether LA can be a routine supplementary therapy warrants further study.
Topics: Animals; Antioxidants; Disease Models, Animal; Encephalomyelitis, Autoimmune, Experimental; Humans; Mice; Multiple Sclerosis; Thioctic Acid
PubMed: 34964271
DOI: 10.1111/cns.13793 -
Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills,... Mar 2015As new therapies emerge which increase the risk of autoimmune disease it is increasingly important to understand the incidence of autoimmune disease in multiple... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
As new therapies emerge which increase the risk of autoimmune disease it is increasingly important to understand the incidence of autoimmune disease in multiple sclerosis (MS).
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review is to estimate the incidence and prevalence of comorbid autoimmune disease in MS.
METHODS
The PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles were searched, and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. The data were abstracted by one reviewer using a standardized data collection form, and the findings were verified by a second reviewer. We assessed quality of the included studies using a standardized approach and conducted meta-analyses of population-based studies.
RESULTS
Sixty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. We observed substantial heterogeneity with respect to the populations studied, methods of ascertaining comorbidity, and reporting of findings. Based solely on population-based studies, the most prevalent autoimmune comorbidities were psoriasis (7.74%) and thyroid disease (6.44%). Our findings also suggest an increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease, likely uveitis and possibly pemphigoid.
CONCLUSION
Fewer than half of the studies identified were of high quality. Population-based studies that report age, sex and ethnicity-specific estimates of incidence and prevalence are needed in jurisdictions worldwide.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases; Comorbidity; Humans; Incidence; Multiple Sclerosis; Prevalence
PubMed: 25533299
DOI: 10.1177/1352458514564490 -
BMC Neurology Apr 2023The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the mental health, sleep and quality of life, especially in individuals with chronic disease. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric and sleep disorders, and quality of life in individuals with neurodegenerative and demyelinating diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the mental health, sleep and quality of life, especially in individuals with chronic disease. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, stress), sleep disorders (sleep quality, insomnia) and quality of life in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to healthy controls.
METHODS
Seven databases (Medline, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scielo and Lilacs) were searched between March 2020 and December 2022. Observational studies (i.e., cross-sectional, case-control, cohort) were included. GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence and strength of the recommendation. Effect size was calculated using standardized mean differences (SMD; random effects model). A customized Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies (PD = 7, MS = 11) were included. A total of 627 individuals with PD (healthy controls = 857) and 3923 individuals with MS (healthy controls = 2432) were analyzed. Twelve studies (PD = 4, MS = 8) were included in the meta-analysis. Individuals with PD had significantly elevated levels of depression (very low evidence, SMD = 0.40, p = 0.04) and stress (very low evidence, SMD = 0.60, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in anxiety (p = 0.08). Individuals with MS had significantly higher levels of depression (very low evidence, SMD = 0.73, p = 0.007) and stress (low evidence, SMD = 0.69, p = 0.03) and low quality of life (very low evidence, SMD = 0.77, p = 0.006). There was no difference in anxiety (p = 0.05) and sleep quality (p = 0.13). It was not possible to synthesize evidence in individuals with AD and sleep disorder (insomnia).
CONCLUSION
In general, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted individuals with PD and MS. Individuals with PD showed significantly higher levels of depression and stress; and individuals with MS presented significantly higher depression and stress levels, as well as significantly lower quality of life when compared to healthy controls. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with AD.
Topics: Humans; Pandemics; COVID-19; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Quality of Life; Cross-Sectional Studies; Sleep Wake Disorders; Parkinson Disease; Demyelinating Diseases; Depression
PubMed: 37046209
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03176-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating exacerbations, preventing new exacerbations and avoiding the progression of disability. However, at present there is no effective treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. This has led to the development and investigation of new drugs. Recent clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against cell surface CD52, could be a promising option for MS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and effectiveness of alemtuzumab used alone or associated with other treatments to decrease disease activity in patients with any form of MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (30 April 2015), which contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and the trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no restriction on the source, publication date or language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults diagnosed with any form of MS according to the McDonald criteria, comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications, at any dose and for any duration, versus placebo or any other active drug therapy or alemtuzumab in other dose, regimen or duration. The co-primary outcomes were relapse-free survival, sustained disease progression and number of participants with at least one of any adverse events, including serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors performed study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. A third review author checked the process for accuracy. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias of the studies included in the review. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of the body of evidence. To measure the treatment effect on dichotomous outcomes we used the risk ratio (RR); for the treatment effect on continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) and for time-to-event outcomes we used hazard ratio (HR). We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. When there was no heterogeneity, we used a fixed-effect model to pool data.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs (1713 participants) fulfilled the selection criteria and we included them in the review. All three trials compared alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Patients were treatment-naive in the CARE-MS and CAMMS223 studies. The CARE-MS II study included patients with at least one relapse while being treated with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate. Alemtuzumab was given for 12 or 24 months; for some outcomes, the follow-up period reached 36 months. The regimens were (a) 12 mg or 24 mg per day administered intravenously, once a day for five consecutive days at month 0 and 12 or (b) 24 mg per day, intravenously, once a day for three consecutive days at month 12 and 24. The patients in the other arm of the trials received interferon beta-1a 44 μg subcutaneously three times weekly after dose titration.At 24 months, alemtuzumab 12 mg was associated with: (a) higher relapse-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.60; 1248 participants, two studies, moderate quality evidence); (b) higher sustained disease progression-free survival (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.87; 1191 participants; two studies; moderate quality evidence); (c) a slightly higher number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06; 1248 participants; two studies; moderate quality evidence); (d) a lower number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91; 1238 participants; two studies; I(2) = 80%); and (e) a lower number of dropouts (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.41; 1248 participants; two studies, I(2) = 29%; low quality evidence).At 36 months, alemtuzumab 24 mg was associated with: (a) higher relapse-free survival (45 versus 17; HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; one study; 221 participants); (b) a higher sustained disease progression-free survival (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; one study; 221 participants); and (c) no statistical difference in the rate of participants with at least one adverse event. We did not find any study that reported any of the following outcomes: rate of participants free of clinical disease activity, quality of life, fatigue or change in the numbers of MRI T2- and T1-weighted lesions after treatment. It was not possible to perform subgroup analyses according to disease type and disability at baseline due to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with relapsing-remitting MS, alemtuzumab 12 mg was better than subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the following outcomes assessed at 24 months: relapse-free survival, sustained disease progression-free survival, number of participants with at least one adverse event and number of participants with new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions on MRI. The quality of the evidence for these results was low to moderate. Alemtuzumab 24 mg seemed to be better than subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, at 36 months.More randomised clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effects of alemtuzumab on other forms of MS and compared with other therapeutic options. These new studies should assess additional relevant outcomes such as the rate of participants free of clinical disease activity, quality of life, fatigue and adverse events (individual rates, serious adverse events and long-term adverse events). Moreover, these new studies should evaluate other doses and durations of alemtuzumab course.
Topics: Adult; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Interferon beta-1a; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27082500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011203.pub2 -
Neurology Apr 2016To reach consensus about the most relevant comorbidities to study in multiple sclerosis (MS) with respect to incidence, prevalence, and effect on outcomes; review...
OBJECTIVE
To reach consensus about the most relevant comorbidities to study in multiple sclerosis (MS) with respect to incidence, prevalence, and effect on outcomes; review datasets that may support studies of comorbidity in MS; and identify MS outcomes that should be prioritized in such studies.
METHODS
We held an international workshop to meet these objectives, informed by a systematic review of the incidence and prevalence of comorbidity in MS, and an international survey regarding research priorities for comorbidity.
RESULTS
We recommend establishing age- and sex-specific incidence and prevalence estimates for 5 comorbidities (depression, anxiety, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes); evaluating the effect of 7 comorbidities (depression, anxiety, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, chronic lung disease, and autoimmune diseases) on disability, quality of life, brain atrophy and other imaging parameters, health care utilization, employment, and mortality, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disease duration as potential confounders; harmonizing study designs across jurisdictions; and conducting such studies worldwide. Ultimately, clinical trials of treating comorbidity in MS are needed.
CONCLUSION
Our recommendations will help address knowledge gaps regarding the incidence, prevalence, and effect of comorbidity on outcomes in MS.
Topics: Comorbidity; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Observational Studies as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 26865523
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002474 -
Journal of Neurology Feb 2022Since the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic, several case reports of demyelination of both peripheral and central nervous systems have been published. The association... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Since the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic, several case reports of demyelination of both peripheral and central nervous systems have been published. The association between CNS demyelination and viral infection has long been documented, and this link was recently reported following SARS-CoV-2 infection as well.
OBJECTIVES
In this systematic review, we aim to investigate the existing literature on CNS demyelination associated with SARS-CoV-2, and the proposed pathophysiological mechanisms.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of articles in PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Ovid databases, from 1 January 2020 until June 15, 2021. The following keywords were used: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "demyelination", "demyelinating disease", "multiple sclerosis", "neuromyelitis optica", and "transverse myelitis".
RESULTS
A total of 60 articles were included in the final analysis of this systematic review and included 102 patients: 52 (51%) men and 50 (49%) women, with a median age of 46.5 years. The demyelination mimicked a variety of conditions with a picture of encephalitis/encephalomyelitis being the most common. At the same time other patterns were less frequently reported such as MS, NMOSD and even MOGAD. Longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis (LETM) was the most frequently reported pattern of spinal cord involvement.
CONCLUSION
A growing body of literature has shown an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of different types of CNS demyelination. Although causality cannot readily be inferred, this review may suggest a probable causal relationship, through a para-infectious or post-infectious immune-mediated etiology in COVID-19 patients. This relationship needs to be clarified in future research.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myelitis, Transverse; Neuromyelitis Optica; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34386902
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-021-10752-x -
Journal of Neurology Sep 2021Neurofilament proteins have been extensively studied in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, where they are promising biomarkers of disease activity and treatment... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Biomarkers; Humans; Intermediate Filaments; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Neurofilament Proteins
PubMed: 32447549
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-09917-x