4.6 Article

Cerebrospinal fluid immunoglobulin light chain ratios predict disease progression in multiple sclerosis

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-317947

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (U.K.) [MR/K501323/1, MC_PC_14107]
  2. Multiple Sclerosis Society [954/11]
  3. MRC [MC_PC_14107] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether the ratio of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) immunoglobulin kappa to lambda light chains at time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts disease progression and whether this was intrinsic to CSF plasmablasts. Methods CS F and peripheral blood were obtained from patients undergoing elective diagnostic lumbar puncture and included clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) (n=43), relapsing remitting MS (RRMS; n=50), primary progressive MS (PPMS; n=20) and other neurological disease controls, both inflammatory (ONID; n=23) and non-inflammatory (OND; n=114). CSF samples were assayed for free and immunoglobulin-associated light chains and on B cells and plasmablasts. Clinical follow-up data were collected during a 5-year follow-up period where available. Results There was an increased median CSF.:. free light chain (FLC) in all MS groups (CIS: 18.2, 95% CI 6.8 to 30.3; RRMS: 4.4, 95% C I 2.7 to 11.4; PPMS: 12.0, 95% C I 3.6 to 37.1) but not controls (OND: 1.61, 95% C I 1.4 to 1.9; ONID: 1.7, 95% C I 1.3 to 2.2; p<0.001). This ratio predicted Expanded Disability Status Scores (EDSS) progression at 5 years, with a lower median EDSS in the group with high (> 10) CSF.:. FLC (0.0, 95% C I 0 to 2.5 vs 2.5, 95% C I 0 to 4, high vs low; p=0.049). CSF.:. FLC correlated with CSF IgG1.:. (r=0.776; p<0.0001) and was intrinsic to CSF plasmablasts (r=0.65; p=0.026). Conclusions These data demonstrate that CSF immunoglobulin.:. ratios, determined at the time of diagnostic lumbar puncture, predict MS disease progression and may therefore be useful prognostic markers for early therapeutic stratification.

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