User login
DALLAS – Neurologists soon may use a blood biomarker of axonal damage to monitor patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and guide treatment decisions, according to a lecture delivered at ACTRIMS Forum 2019.
said David Leppert, MD, senior research associate in the department of neurology at University Hopsital Basel (Switzerland).
Among patients with MS, blood NfL levels predict disability, brain volume loss, and spinal cord atrophy. In addition, studies have found that blood NfL decreases in response to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and that second-line DMTs may decrease blood NfL more than first-line DMTs do.
The establishment of normative databases and reference biomarkers may allow neurologists to use NfL in their care of individual patients, Dr. Leppert predicted at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. “I am very positive that we will make a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 years for an individual use of neurofilaments,” he said.
Response to DMT
An analysis of blood NfL levels from patients with MS and from healthy controls in two phase 3 trials of fingolimod, FREEDOMS and TRANSFORMS, provides insights into NfL’s response to DMT (Neurology. 2019 Mar 5;92[10]:e1007-15). In FREEDOMS, which compared fingolimod with placebo, “fingolimod leads to a rapid decrease of neurofilament levels, close to normality, while placebo patients continue to have high levels,” said Dr. Leppert, a coauthor of the study.
TRANSFORMS compared interferon-beta and fingolimod. “The clinical experience that fingolimod is a more potent compound than interferon is actually reflected here by the NfL results,” Dr. Leppert said. “Both compounds lead to a decrease of neurofilaments – so, a decrease of neuronal damage – but one drug is more potent than the other one.”
Similarly, data from the observational EPIC study indicate that patients who do not receive DMT have a consistent increase in NfL levels, whereas those who receive platform therapies have a slight decrease in NfL and those who receive second-line therapies have a greater decrease, Dr. Leppert said.
Decades of research
For about 20 years, researchers have studied neurofilaments in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as a potential biomarker for MS and other diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and head trauma.
“What prevented the emergence of NfL to clinical practice was the inability to measure it in blood because levels are 50-100 times lower [in blood] than in CSF,” Dr. Leppert said.
The development of single molecule array (SIMOA) technology enabled researchers to show a proper correlation between levels of NfL in CSF and those in blood, Dr. Leppert said. “That is now allowing repetitive testing in an accessible fluid compartment, meaning serum or plasma,” he said.
Compared with brain MRI, NfL may provide novel insights into MS disease activity. “MRI is measuring a structural deficit of the past,” Dr. Leppert said. “NfL is measuring online, real time what axonal damage is occurring.”
Correlation with outcomes
At the group level, patients with MS have higher levels of NfL, compared with controls, and levels are higher in patients with progressive forms of MS versus relapsing forms. “Levels increase dramatically in the wake of relapse,” he said.
Barro et al. found that patients with higher serum levels of NfL are more likely to experience Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) worsening (Brain. 2018 Aug 1;141[8]:2382-91). Furthermore, MRI lesions are independently associated with serum NfL, and patients with higher levels of serum NfL have significantly greater average loss in brain volume and spinal cord volume over 5 years.
A treatment algorithm
NfL someday could be incorporated into MS treatment algorithms, Dr. Leppert suggested. For instance, if a patient has high levels of disease activity based on MRI or clinical grounds, then prescribe a high-efficacy therapy. If not, measure NfL. “If the levels are low, then you can be assured to use platform therapies or continue what the patient has. But if NfL levels are high, then you should choose high efficacious therapies or switch to high-efficacious therapies in the long run,” he said.
Limitations and next steps
Although NfL is a specific marker of neuronal damage, it is not specific for the cause of the damage. Further studies are needed to better understand NfL metabolism and confounding factors such as age. Reference biomarkers likely will be needed “to conceptualize whether the signal of NfL is due to acute disease or chronic disease,” Dr. Leppert said.
“We need to optimize the assay and come to a worldwide agreement on the platform. We need to have prospective studies, mainly to achieve regulatory acceptance. And we need to have a normative database” to determine which NfL values are pathologic at a particular age, he said.
Despite the biomarker’s potential, blood NfL levels will not replace clinical expertise. “Biomarkers cannot be of value without a clinical backing and a clinical evaluation,” Dr. Leppert said. “The idea that this will replace us or any other person who makes a clinical judgment is a big error. NfL will prevail as a biomarker. ... But interpretation of the clinical background is germane.”
Dr. Leppert has been an employee of pharmaceutical companies, most recently Novartis.
DALLAS – Neurologists soon may use a blood biomarker of axonal damage to monitor patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and guide treatment decisions, according to a lecture delivered at ACTRIMS Forum 2019.
said David Leppert, MD, senior research associate in the department of neurology at University Hopsital Basel (Switzerland).
Among patients with MS, blood NfL levels predict disability, brain volume loss, and spinal cord atrophy. In addition, studies have found that blood NfL decreases in response to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and that second-line DMTs may decrease blood NfL more than first-line DMTs do.
The establishment of normative databases and reference biomarkers may allow neurologists to use NfL in their care of individual patients, Dr. Leppert predicted at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. “I am very positive that we will make a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 years for an individual use of neurofilaments,” he said.
Response to DMT
An analysis of blood NfL levels from patients with MS and from healthy controls in two phase 3 trials of fingolimod, FREEDOMS and TRANSFORMS, provides insights into NfL’s response to DMT (Neurology. 2019 Mar 5;92[10]:e1007-15). In FREEDOMS, which compared fingolimod with placebo, “fingolimod leads to a rapid decrease of neurofilament levels, close to normality, while placebo patients continue to have high levels,” said Dr. Leppert, a coauthor of the study.
TRANSFORMS compared interferon-beta and fingolimod. “The clinical experience that fingolimod is a more potent compound than interferon is actually reflected here by the NfL results,” Dr. Leppert said. “Both compounds lead to a decrease of neurofilaments – so, a decrease of neuronal damage – but one drug is more potent than the other one.”
Similarly, data from the observational EPIC study indicate that patients who do not receive DMT have a consistent increase in NfL levels, whereas those who receive platform therapies have a slight decrease in NfL and those who receive second-line therapies have a greater decrease, Dr. Leppert said.
Decades of research
For about 20 years, researchers have studied neurofilaments in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as a potential biomarker for MS and other diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and head trauma.
“What prevented the emergence of NfL to clinical practice was the inability to measure it in blood because levels are 50-100 times lower [in blood] than in CSF,” Dr. Leppert said.
The development of single molecule array (SIMOA) technology enabled researchers to show a proper correlation between levels of NfL in CSF and those in blood, Dr. Leppert said. “That is now allowing repetitive testing in an accessible fluid compartment, meaning serum or plasma,” he said.
Compared with brain MRI, NfL may provide novel insights into MS disease activity. “MRI is measuring a structural deficit of the past,” Dr. Leppert said. “NfL is measuring online, real time what axonal damage is occurring.”
Correlation with outcomes
At the group level, patients with MS have higher levels of NfL, compared with controls, and levels are higher in patients with progressive forms of MS versus relapsing forms. “Levels increase dramatically in the wake of relapse,” he said.
Barro et al. found that patients with higher serum levels of NfL are more likely to experience Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) worsening (Brain. 2018 Aug 1;141[8]:2382-91). Furthermore, MRI lesions are independently associated with serum NfL, and patients with higher levels of serum NfL have significantly greater average loss in brain volume and spinal cord volume over 5 years.
A treatment algorithm
NfL someday could be incorporated into MS treatment algorithms, Dr. Leppert suggested. For instance, if a patient has high levels of disease activity based on MRI or clinical grounds, then prescribe a high-efficacy therapy. If not, measure NfL. “If the levels are low, then you can be assured to use platform therapies or continue what the patient has. But if NfL levels are high, then you should choose high efficacious therapies or switch to high-efficacious therapies in the long run,” he said.
Limitations and next steps
Although NfL is a specific marker of neuronal damage, it is not specific for the cause of the damage. Further studies are needed to better understand NfL metabolism and confounding factors such as age. Reference biomarkers likely will be needed “to conceptualize whether the signal of NfL is due to acute disease or chronic disease,” Dr. Leppert said.
“We need to optimize the assay and come to a worldwide agreement on the platform. We need to have prospective studies, mainly to achieve regulatory acceptance. And we need to have a normative database” to determine which NfL values are pathologic at a particular age, he said.
Despite the biomarker’s potential, blood NfL levels will not replace clinical expertise. “Biomarkers cannot be of value without a clinical backing and a clinical evaluation,” Dr. Leppert said. “The idea that this will replace us or any other person who makes a clinical judgment is a big error. NfL will prevail as a biomarker. ... But interpretation of the clinical background is germane.”
Dr. Leppert has been an employee of pharmaceutical companies, most recently Novartis.
DALLAS – Neurologists soon may use a blood biomarker of axonal damage to monitor patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and guide treatment decisions, according to a lecture delivered at ACTRIMS Forum 2019.
said David Leppert, MD, senior research associate in the department of neurology at University Hopsital Basel (Switzerland).
Among patients with MS, blood NfL levels predict disability, brain volume loss, and spinal cord atrophy. In addition, studies have found that blood NfL decreases in response to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and that second-line DMTs may decrease blood NfL more than first-line DMTs do.
The establishment of normative databases and reference biomarkers may allow neurologists to use NfL in their care of individual patients, Dr. Leppert predicted at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. “I am very positive that we will make a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 years for an individual use of neurofilaments,” he said.
Response to DMT
An analysis of blood NfL levels from patients with MS and from healthy controls in two phase 3 trials of fingolimod, FREEDOMS and TRANSFORMS, provides insights into NfL’s response to DMT (Neurology. 2019 Mar 5;92[10]:e1007-15). In FREEDOMS, which compared fingolimod with placebo, “fingolimod leads to a rapid decrease of neurofilament levels, close to normality, while placebo patients continue to have high levels,” said Dr. Leppert, a coauthor of the study.
TRANSFORMS compared interferon-beta and fingolimod. “The clinical experience that fingolimod is a more potent compound than interferon is actually reflected here by the NfL results,” Dr. Leppert said. “Both compounds lead to a decrease of neurofilaments – so, a decrease of neuronal damage – but one drug is more potent than the other one.”
Similarly, data from the observational EPIC study indicate that patients who do not receive DMT have a consistent increase in NfL levels, whereas those who receive platform therapies have a slight decrease in NfL and those who receive second-line therapies have a greater decrease, Dr. Leppert said.
Decades of research
For about 20 years, researchers have studied neurofilaments in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as a potential biomarker for MS and other diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and head trauma.
“What prevented the emergence of NfL to clinical practice was the inability to measure it in blood because levels are 50-100 times lower [in blood] than in CSF,” Dr. Leppert said.
The development of single molecule array (SIMOA) technology enabled researchers to show a proper correlation between levels of NfL in CSF and those in blood, Dr. Leppert said. “That is now allowing repetitive testing in an accessible fluid compartment, meaning serum or plasma,” he said.
Compared with brain MRI, NfL may provide novel insights into MS disease activity. “MRI is measuring a structural deficit of the past,” Dr. Leppert said. “NfL is measuring online, real time what axonal damage is occurring.”
Correlation with outcomes
At the group level, patients with MS have higher levels of NfL, compared with controls, and levels are higher in patients with progressive forms of MS versus relapsing forms. “Levels increase dramatically in the wake of relapse,” he said.
Barro et al. found that patients with higher serum levels of NfL are more likely to experience Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) worsening (Brain. 2018 Aug 1;141[8]:2382-91). Furthermore, MRI lesions are independently associated with serum NfL, and patients with higher levels of serum NfL have significantly greater average loss in brain volume and spinal cord volume over 5 years.
A treatment algorithm
NfL someday could be incorporated into MS treatment algorithms, Dr. Leppert suggested. For instance, if a patient has high levels of disease activity based on MRI or clinical grounds, then prescribe a high-efficacy therapy. If not, measure NfL. “If the levels are low, then you can be assured to use platform therapies or continue what the patient has. But if NfL levels are high, then you should choose high efficacious therapies or switch to high-efficacious therapies in the long run,” he said.
Limitations and next steps
Although NfL is a specific marker of neuronal damage, it is not specific for the cause of the damage. Further studies are needed to better understand NfL metabolism and confounding factors such as age. Reference biomarkers likely will be needed “to conceptualize whether the signal of NfL is due to acute disease or chronic disease,” Dr. Leppert said.
“We need to optimize the assay and come to a worldwide agreement on the platform. We need to have prospective studies, mainly to achieve regulatory acceptance. And we need to have a normative database” to determine which NfL values are pathologic at a particular age, he said.
Despite the biomarker’s potential, blood NfL levels will not replace clinical expertise. “Biomarkers cannot be of value without a clinical backing and a clinical evaluation,” Dr. Leppert said. “The idea that this will replace us or any other person who makes a clinical judgment is a big error. NfL will prevail as a biomarker. ... But interpretation of the clinical background is germane.”
Dr. Leppert has been an employee of pharmaceutical companies, most recently Novartis.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019