Jeske van Pamelen, Marleen J A Koel-Simmelink, Birgit I Lissenberg, Edo P J Arnoldus, Janet de Beukelaar, Judith van Vliet, Joep Killestein, Charlotte E Teunissen, Leo H Visser
{"title":"多发性硬化症复发或不复发:疾病活动性生物标志物能支持临床医生的判断吗?","authors":"Jeske van Pamelen, Marleen J A Koel-Simmelink, Birgit I Lissenberg, Edo P J Arnoldus, Janet de Beukelaar, Judith van Vliet, Joep Killestein, Charlotte E Teunissen, Leo H Visser","doi":"10.1177/20552173251370830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), the assessment of clinical disease activity can be challenging.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the diagnostic potential of serum neurofilament light (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) to distinguish a relapse from other causes of deterioration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, prospective study, RRMS patients with new neurological symptoms in the last 14 days were followed for 12 weeks. A diagnosis was established by the treating physician or, when in doubt, a panel of experienced neurologists. Blood samples were taken at baseline and week 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 65 patients were included. At baseline, patients with a clear relapse had a significantly higher median sNfL (14.6 pg/mL) than those with a clear other cause (9.5 pg/mL, <i>p</i> = 0.004). Although not significant after correction for multiple testing, median sGFAP was also higher in relapse patients (73.0 vs 64.6 pg/mL, <i>p</i> = 0.036). An sNfL value below 6.0 pg/mL had a high sensitivity (67% at baseline (CI 22.3-95.7%) and 100% at follow-up (CI 54.1-100%)) to rule out a relapse.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of sNfL level can be useful as an add-on investigation to determine whether disease activity is present in patients with RRMS presenting with new symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":18961,"journal":{"name":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","volume":"11 3","pages":"20552173251370830"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12405697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relapse or no relapse in multiple sclerosis: Can disease activity biomarkers support the clinician?\",\"authors\":\"Jeske van Pamelen, Marleen J A Koel-Simmelink, Birgit I Lissenberg, Edo P J Arnoldus, Janet de Beukelaar, Judith van Vliet, Joep Killestein, Charlotte E Teunissen, Leo H Visser\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552173251370830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), the assessment of clinical disease activity can be challenging.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the diagnostic potential of serum neurofilament light (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) to distinguish a relapse from other causes of deterioration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, prospective study, RRMS patients with new neurological symptoms in the last 14 days were followed for 12 weeks. A diagnosis was established by the treating physician or, when in doubt, a panel of experienced neurologists. Blood samples were taken at baseline and week 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 65 patients were included. At baseline, patients with a clear relapse had a significantly higher median sNfL (14.6 pg/mL) than those with a clear other cause (9.5 pg/mL, <i>p</i> = 0.004). Although not significant after correction for multiple testing, median sGFAP was also higher in relapse patients (73.0 vs 64.6 pg/mL, <i>p</i> = 0.036). An sNfL value below 6.0 pg/mL had a high sensitivity (67% at baseline (CI 22.3-95.7%) and 100% at follow-up (CI 54.1-100%)) to rule out a relapse.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of sNfL level can be useful as an add-on investigation to determine whether disease activity is present in patients with RRMS presenting with new symptoms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"20552173251370830\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12405697/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173251370830\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173251370830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在复发缓解型多发性硬化症(RRMS)中,临床疾病活动性的评估可能具有挑战性。目的:确定血清神经丝光(sNfL)和胶质纤维酸性蛋白(sGFAP)在区分复发和其他原因恶化中的诊断潜力。方法:在这项多中心前瞻性研究中,对最近14天出现神经系统新症状的RRMS患者进行了为期12周的随访。诊断是由主治医师作出的,如果有疑问,则由经验丰富的神经科专家小组作出。在基线和第12周采集血样。结果:共纳入65例患者。在基线时,明确复发的患者sNfL中位数(14.6 pg/mL)明显高于明确其他原因的患者(9.5 pg/mL, p = 0.004)。虽然多次检测校正后无显著性差异,但复发患者的中位sGFAP也更高(73.0 vs 64.6 pg/mL, p = 0.036)。sNfL值低于6.0 pg/mL具有高敏感性(基线时为67% (CI 22.3-95.7%),随访时为100% (CI 54.1-100%)),可排除复发。结论:分析sNfL水平可作为一项附加调查,用于确定出现新症状的RRMS患者是否存在疾病活动。
Relapse or no relapse in multiple sclerosis: Can disease activity biomarkers support the clinician?
Background: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), the assessment of clinical disease activity can be challenging.
Objectives: To determine the diagnostic potential of serum neurofilament light (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) to distinguish a relapse from other causes of deterioration.
Methods: In this multicenter, prospective study, RRMS patients with new neurological symptoms in the last 14 days were followed for 12 weeks. A diagnosis was established by the treating physician or, when in doubt, a panel of experienced neurologists. Blood samples were taken at baseline and week 12.
Results: A total of 65 patients were included. At baseline, patients with a clear relapse had a significantly higher median sNfL (14.6 pg/mL) than those with a clear other cause (9.5 pg/mL, p = 0.004). Although not significant after correction for multiple testing, median sGFAP was also higher in relapse patients (73.0 vs 64.6 pg/mL, p = 0.036). An sNfL value below 6.0 pg/mL had a high sensitivity (67% at baseline (CI 22.3-95.7%) and 100% at follow-up (CI 54.1-100%)) to rule out a relapse.
Conclusions: Analysis of sNfL level can be useful as an add-on investigation to determine whether disease activity is present in patients with RRMS presenting with new symptoms.