4.6 Article

Neurofilament as a potential biomarker for spinal muscular atrophy

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.779

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate plasma phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (pNF-H) as a biomarker in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Methods Levels of pNF-H were measured using the ProteinSimpleA (R) platform in plasma samples from infants with SMA enrolled in ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and infants/children without neurological disease. Results Median pNF-H plasma level was 167.0 pg/mL (7.46-7,030; n = 34) in children without SMA (aged 7 weeks-18 years) and was higher in those aged < 1 versus 1-18 years (P = 0.0002). In ENDEAR participants with infantile-onset SMA, median baseline pNF-H level (15,400 pg/mL; 2390-50,100; n = 117) was similar to 10-fold higher than that of age-matched infants without SMA (P < 0.0001) and similar to 90-fold higher than children without SMA (P < 0.0001). Higher pretreatment pNF-H levels in infants with SMA were associated with younger age at symptom onset, diagnosis, and first dose; lower baseline Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders score; and lower peroneal compound muscle potential amplitude. Nusinersen treatment was associated with a rapid and greater decline in pNF-H levels: nusinersen-treated infants experienced a steep 71.9% decline at 2 months to 90.1% decline at 10 months; sham control-treated infants declined steadily by 16.2% at 2 months and 60.3% at 10 months. Interpretation Plasma pNF-H levels are elevated in infants with SMA. Levels inversely correlate with age at first dose and several markers of disease severity. Nusinersen treatment is associated with a significant decline in pNF-H levels followed by relative stabilization. Together these data suggest plasma pNF-H is a promising marker of disease activity/treatment response in infants with SMA.

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