Thomas Williams1, Henrik Zetterberg2,3,4,5, Jeremy Chataway6,7. 1. Department of Neuroinflammation, Faculty of Brain Sciences, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. Thomas.williams@nhs.net. 2. Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. 3. UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, UK. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy At the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden. 5. Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden. 6. Department of Neuroinflammation, Faculty of Brain Sciences, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. 7. Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
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.
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.
Authors: Ulrika Sjöbom; William Hellström; Chatarina Löfqvist; Anders K Nilsson; Gerd Holmström; Ingrid Hansen Pupp; David Ley; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Karin Sävman; Ann Hellström Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Thomas E Williams; Katherine P Holdsworth; Jennifer M Nicholas; Arman Eshaghi; Theodora Katsanouli; Henrietta Wellington; Amanda Heslegrave; Henrik Zetterberg; Chris Frost; Jeremy Chataway Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2022-01-14
Authors: Thomas Williams; Carmen Tur; Arman Eshaghi; Anisha Doshi; Dennis Chan; Sophie Binks; Henny Wellington; Amanda Heslegrave; Henrik Zetterberg; Jeremy Chataway Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 5.855
Authors: Tamás Biernacki; Zsófia Kokas; Dániel Sandi; Judit Füvesi; Zsanett Fricska-Nagy; Péter Faragó; Tamás Zsigmond Kincses; Péter Klivényi; Krisztina Bencsik; László Vécsei Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Vivien Li; Baptiste Leurent; Frederik Barkhof; Marie Braisher; Fay Cafferty; Olga Ciccarelli; Arman Eshaghi; Emma Gray; Jennifer M Nicholas; Mahesh Parmar; Guy Peryer; Jenny Robertson; Nigel Stallard; James Wason; Jeremy Chataway Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 11.800