Cited by 199Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPolyomavirus and related diseasesPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Association Between Serum Neurofilament Light Chain Levels and Long-term Disease Course Among Patients With Multiple Sclerosis Followed up for 12 Years

Open access
Cantó, Ester, Barro, Christian, Zhao, Chao, Caillier, Stacy J., Michalak, Zuzanna, Bove, Riley, Tomic, Davorka, Santaniello, Adam +10 more·2019·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Blood sample-based biomarkers that are associated with clinically meaningful outcomes for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have not been developed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential of serum neurofilament light chain (sNFL) measurements as a biomarker of disease activity and progression in a longitudinal MS data set. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, ongoing, prospective observational cohort study of 607 patients with MS from the longitudinal EPIC (Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical) study at the University of California, San Francisco from July 1, 2004, through August 31, 2017. Clinical evaluations and sample collection were performed annually for 5 years, then at different time points for up to 12 years, with a median follow-up duration of 10 (interquartile range, 7-11) years. Serum NFL levels were measured using a sensitive single molecule array platform and compared with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging variables with the use of univariable and multivariable analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were disability progression defined as clinically significant worsening on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and brain fraction atrophy. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the 607 study participants at study entry was 42.5 (9.8) years; 423 (69.7%) were women; and all participants were of non-Hispanic European descent. Of 3911 samples sequentially collected, 3904 passed quality control for quantification of sNFL. Baseline sNFL levels showed significant associations with EDSS score (β, 1.080; 95% CI, 1.047-1.114; P < .001), MS subtype (β, 1.478; 95% CI, 1.279-1.707; P < .001), and treatment status (β, 1.120; 95% CI, 1.007-1.245; P = .04). A significant interaction between EDSS worsening and change in levels of sNFL over time was found (β, 1.015; 95% CI, 1.007-1.023; P < .001). Baseline sNFL levels alone were associated with approximately 11.6% of the variance in brain fraction atrophy at year 10. In a multivariable analysis that considered sex, age, and disease duration, baseline sNFL levels were associated with 18.0% of the variance in brain fraction atrophy at year 10. After 5 years' follow-up, active treatment was associated with lower levels of sNFL, with high-potency treatments associated with the greater decreases in sNFL levels compared with platform therapies (high-potency vs untreated: β, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.915-0.976; P < .001; high-potency vs platform: β, 0.972; 95% CI, 0.948-0.998; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that statistically significant associations of sNFL with relevant clinical and neuroimaging outcomes in MS were confirmed and extended, supporting the potential of sNFL as an objective surrogate of ongoing MS disease activity. In this data set of patients with MS who received early treatment, the prognostic power of sNFL for relapse activity and long-term disability progression was limited. Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the assay's utility for decision-making in individual patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2137

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most studies of NfL rely on serum.

    “Third, the inconsistent use of serum versus plasma further complicates comparisons, as most studies of NfL rely on serum.4,6,9,12–14”

    From Establishing demographic-based normative values for neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum and plasma samples (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The sNFL Measurements section shows that this study used serum samples, and the Discussion mentions other studies using serum NfL. The paper does not establish that most NfL studies use serum rather than plasma, so it supports an example of serum use but not the claimed majority. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Cross AH, Naismith RT. Established and novel disease-modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. J Intern Med. 2014;275(4):350-363. doi:10.1111/joim. 12203 · DOI
  2. Feinstein A, Freeman J, Lo AC. Treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis: what works, what does not, and what is needed. Lancet Neurol. 2015; 14(2):194-207. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70231-5 · DOI
  3. Housley WJ, Pitt D, Hafler DA. Biomarkers in multiple sclerosis. Clin Immunol. 2015;161(1):51-58. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2015.06.015 · DOI
  4. Reuwer AQ, Heron M, van der Dussen D, Schneider-Hohendorf T, Murk JL. The clinical utility of JC virus antibody index measurements in the context of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017;136 (suppl 201):37-44. doi:10.1111/ane.12840 · DOI
  5. Lennon VA, Wingerchuk DM, Kryzer TJ, et al. A serum autoantibody marker of neuromyelitis optica: distinction from multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2004;364(9451):2106-2112. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (04)17551-X · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bjartmar C, Kidd G, Mörk S, Rudick R, Trapp BD. Neurological disability correlates with spinal cord axonal loss and reduced N-acetyl aspartate in chronic multiple sclerosis patients. Ann Neurol. 2000;48(6):893-901. doi:10.1002/1531-8249 (200012)48:6<893::AID-ANA10>3.0.CO;2-B 7. Petzold A, Eikelenboom MJ, Keir G, et al. Axonal damage accumulates in the progressive phase of multiple sclerosis: three year follow up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(2):206-211. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.043315 · DOI
  7. 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(3):402-404. doi:10.1136/jnnp.64.3.402 · DOI
  8. 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(10):1655-1661. doi:10.1515/cclm-2015-1195 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Petzold A, Steenwijk MD, Eikelenboom JM, Wattjes MP, Uitdehaag BM. Elevated CSF neurofilament proteins predict brain atrophy: a 15-year follow-up study. Mult Scler. 2016;22(9): 1154-1162. doi:10.1177/1352458516645206 · DOI
  10. Weston PSJ, Poole T, Ryan NS, et al. Serum neurofilament light in familial Alzheimer disease: a marker of early neurodegeneration. Neurology. 2017;89(21):2167-2175. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0000000000004667 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Skillbäck T, Mattsson N, Blennow K, Zetterberg H. Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light concentration in motor neuron disease and frontotemporal dementia predicts survival. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2017;18(5-6):397-403. doi:10.1080/21678421.2017. 1281962 · DOI
  12. Byrne LM, Rodrigues FB, Blennow K, et al. Neurofilament light protein in blood as a potential biomarker of neurodegeneration in Huntington's disease: a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(8):601-609. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422 (17)30124-2 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kuhle J, Nourbakhsh B, Grant D, et al. Serum neurofilament is associated with progression of brain atrophy and disability in early MS. Neurology. 2017;88(9):826-831. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0000000000003653 · DOI
  14. Gisslén 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. 2015;3:135-140. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.11.036 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Cree BA, Gourraud PA, Oksenberg JR, et al; University of California, San Francisco MS-EPIC Team. Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treatment era. Ann Neurol. 2016;80 (4):499-510. doi:10.1002/ana.24747 · DOI
  16. 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(1):121-127. doi:10.1002/ana.1032 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Teunissen CE, Iacobaeus E, Khademi M, et al. Combination of CSF N-acetylaspartate and neurofilaments in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2009;72(15):1322-1329. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0b013e3181a0fe3f · DOI
  18. Norgren N, Sundström P, Svenningsson A, Rosengren L, Stigbrand T, Gunnarsson M. Neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2004;63(9):1586-1590. doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000142988.49341.D1 · DOI
  19. Kuhle J, Leppert D, Petzold A, et al. Neurofilament heavy chain in CSF correlates with relapses and disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2011;76(14):1206-1213. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0b013e31821432ff · DOI
  20. Khalil M, Enzinger C, Langkammer C, et al. CSF neurofilament and N-acetylaspartate related brain changes in clinically isolated syndrome. Mult Scler. 2013;19(4):436-442. doi:10.1177/1352458512458010 · DOI
  21. Barro C, Benkert P, Disanto G, et al. Serum neurofilament as a predictor of disease worsening and brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2018;141(8):2382-2391. doi:10. 1093/brain/awy154 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Giovannoni G, Cutter G, Sormani MP, et al. Is multiple sclerosis a length-dependent central axonopathy? the case for therapeutic lag and the asynchronous progressive MS hypotheses. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;12:70-78. doi:10.1016/j. msard.2017.01.007 · DOI
  23. Gunnarsson M, Malmeström C, Axelsson M, et al. Axonal damage in relapsing multiple sclerosis is markedly reduced by natalizumab. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(1):83-89. doi:10.1002/ana.22247 · DOI
  24. Axelsson M, Malmeström C, Gunnarsson M, et al. Immunosuppressive therapy reduces axonal damage in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2014;20(1):43-50. doi:10.1177/1352458513490544 · DOI
  25. Kuhle J, Disanto G, Lorscheider J, et al. Fingolimod and CSF neurofilament light chain levels in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2015;84(16):1639-1643. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0000000000001491 · DOI
  26. 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(2):296-304. doi:10.1111/jnc.13881 · DOI
  27. Piehl F, Kockum I, Khademi M, et al. Plasma neurofilament light chain levels in patients with MS switching from injectable therapies to fingolimod. Mult Scler. 2018;24(8):1046-1054. doi:10.1177/ 1352458517715132 · DOI
  28. Arrambide G, Espejo C, Eixarch H, et al. Neurofilament light chain level is a weak risk factor for the development of MS. Neurology. 2016;87(11): 1076-1084. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000003085 · DOI
  29. Kuhle J, Kropshofer H, Haering DA, et al. Blood neurofilament light chain as a biomarker of MS disease activity and treatment response. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1007-e1015. doi:10.1212/WNL. 0000000000007032 · DOI
  30. Chitnis T, Gonzalez C, Healy BC, et al. Neurofilament light chain serum levels correlate with 10-year MRI outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018;5(12):1478-1491. doi:10.1002/acn3.638 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cantó, E., Barro, C., Zhao, C., Caillier, S. J., Michalak, Z., Bove, R., Tomic, D., Santaniello, A., Häring, D. A., Hollenbach, J., Henry, R. G., Cree, B. A. C., Kappos, L., Leppert, D., Hauser, S. L., Benkert, P., Oksenberg, J. R., & Kuhle, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, Biomedicine, and Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Corresponding author
Oksenberg, Jorge R.
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
76
Issue
11
Pages
1359
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2968485766
Cited by
199
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 5
FWCI
17.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS026799, R35NS111644)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, serum neurofilament light chain, blood biomarkers, disability progression, Expanded Disability Status Scale, brain atrophy, disease activity, disease progression, MS subtypes, treatment status, longitudinal follow-up, single molecule array, magnetic resonance imaging, EPIC study, neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, treatment response monitoring, relapse monitoring, disease-modifying therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review