4.6 Review

Tracking a Fast-Moving Disease: Longitudinal Markers, Monitoring, and Clinical Trial Endpoints in ALS

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00229

Keywords

motor neuron disease; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; biomarkers; magnetic resonance imaging; neuroimaging

Funding

  1. Andrew Lydon Scholarship
  2. Health Research Board (HRB-Ireland) [HRB EIA-2017-019]
  3. Irish Institute of Clinical Neuroscience (IICN)-Novartis Ireland Research Grant
  4. Iris O'Brien Foundation
  5. Perrigo Clinician-Scientist Research Fellowship
  6. Research Motor Neuron (RMN-Ireland) Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) encompasses a heterogeneous group of phenotypes with different progression rates, varying degree of extra-motor involvement and divergent progression patterns. The natural history of ALS is increasingly evaluated by large, multi-time point longitudinal studies, many of which now incorporate presymptomatic and post-mortem assessments. These studies not only have the potential to characterize patterns of anatomical propagation, molecular mechanisms of disease spread, but also to identify pragmatic monitoring markers. Sensitive markers of progressive neurodegenerative change are indispensable for clinical trials and individualized patient care. Biofluid markers, neuroimaging indices, electrophysiological markers, rating scales, questionnaires, and other disease-specific instruments have divergent sensitivity profiles. The discussion of candidate monitoring markers in ALS has a dual academic and clinical relevance, and is particularly timely given the increasing number of pharmacological trials. The objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive and critical review of longitudinal studies in ALS, focusing on the sensitivity profile of established and emerging monitoring markers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available