4.7 Article

Blood NfL A biomarker for disease severity and progression in Parkinson disease

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 93, 期 11, 页码 E1104-E1111

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008088

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 106-2321-B-002-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine whether plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels were associated with motor and cognitive progression in Parkinson disease (PD). Methods This prospective follow-up study enrolled 178 participants, including 116 with PD, 22 with multiple system atrophy (MSA), and 40 healthy controls. We measured plasma NfL levels with electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Patients with PD received evaluations of motor and cognition at baseline and at a mean follow-up interval of 3 years. Changes in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III motor score and Mini-Mental State Examination score were used to assess motor and cognition progression. Results Plasma NfL levels were significantly higher in the MSA group than in the PD and healthy groups (35.8 +/- 6.2, 17.6 +/- 2.8, and 10.6 +/- 2.3 pg/mL, respectively, p < 0.001). In the PD group, NfL levels were significantly elevated in patients with advanced Hoehn-Yahr stage and patients with dementia (p < 0.001). NfL levels were modestly correlated with UPDRS part III scores (r = 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.56, p < 0.001). After a mean follow-up of 3.4 +/- 1.2 years, a Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, disease duration, and baseline motor or cognitive status showed that higher baseline NfL levels were associated with higher risks for either motor or cognition progression (p = 0.029 and p = 0.015, respectively). Conclusions Plasma NfL levels correlated with disease severity and progression in terms of both motor and cognitive functions in PD. Classification of evidence This study provides Class III evidence that plasma NfL level distinguishes PD from MSA and is a surrogate biomarker for PD progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据