4.4 Article

Defining active progressive multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 13, 页码 1727-1735

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517726592

关键词

Biomarkers; immunology; multiple sclerosis; progressive

资金

  1. Danish Multiple Sclerosis Society, Biogen Idec
  2. Danish Council for Strategic Research
  3. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  4. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF11OC1014514] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It is unknown whether disease activity according to consensus criteria (magnetic resonance imaging activity or clinical relapses) associate with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) changes in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective: To compare CSF biomarkers in active and inactive progressive MS according to consensus criteria. Methods: Neurofilament light chain (NFL), myelin basic protein (MBP), IgG-index, chitinase-3-like-1 (CHI3L1), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), chemokine CXCL13, terminal complement complex, leukocyte counts and nitric oxide metabolites were measured in primary (n = 26) and secondary progressive MS (n = 26) and healthy controls (n = 24). Results: Progressive MS patients had higher CSF cell counts, IgG-index, CHI3L1, MMP-9, CXCL13, NFL and MBP concentrations. Active patients were younger and had higher NFL, CXCL13 and MMP-9 concentrations than inactive patients. Patients with active disease according to consensus criteria or detectable CXCL13 or MMP-9 in CSF were defined as having combined active progressive MS. These patients had increased CSF cell counts, IgG-index and MBP, NFL and CHI3L1 concentrations. Combined inactive patients only had increased IgG-index and MBP concentrations. Conclusion: Patients with combined active progressive MS show evidence of inflammation, demyelination and neuronal/axonal damage, whereas the remaining patients mainly show evidence of active demyelination. This challenges the idea that neurodegeneration independent of inflammation is crucial in disease 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

4.4
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