4.6 Article

Plasma neurofilament light chain predicts progression in progressive supranuclear palsy

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.290

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [T32 AG023481, P01 AG019724, R01 AG038791] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [U54 NS092089] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveBlood-based biomarkers for neurodegenerative conditions could improve diagnosis and treatment development. Neurofilament light chain (NfL), a marker of axonal injury, is elevated in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). The goal of this study was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic value of plasma NfL in patients with PSP. MethodsPlasma NfL was measured with ultrasensitive digital immunoassay-based technology at baseline and 1-year follow-up in a pilot cohort of 15 PSP patients and 12 healthy controls, and a validation cohort of 147 PSP patients. Mixed linear models tested the ability of plasma NfL to predict neurological, cognitive and functional decline, and brain atrophy. ResultsBaseline mean plasma NfL levels were elevated in PSP patients (314pg/mL, vs. control, 17.5 +/- 1pg/mL, P<0.05) and this difference persisted at follow-up. A cutoff value of 20pg/mL related to the diagnosis of PSP with a sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.83 (positive likelihood ratio=4.7 and a negative likelihood radio of 0.24). Patients with higher NfL levels had more severe neurological (PSPRS, -36.9% vs. -28.9%, P=0.04), functional (SEADL, -38.2% vs. -20%, P=0.03), and neuropsychological (RBANS, -23.9% vs. -12.3%, P=001) deterioration over 1year. Higher baseline NfL predicted greater whole-brain and superior cerebellar peduncle volume loss. Plasma and CSF NfL were significantly correlated (r=0.74, P=0.002). InterpretationPlasma NfL is elevated in PSP and could be of value as a biomarker both to assist clinical diagnosis and to monitor pharmacodynamic effects on the neurodegenerative process in clinical trials.

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

4.6
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