Serum biomarkers at disease onset for personalized therapy in multiple sclerosis.

The potential of combining serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) levels to predict disability worsening in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains underexplored. We aimed to investigate whether sNfL and sGFAP values identify distinct subgroups of patients according to the risk of disability worsening and their response to disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). This multicentre study, conducted across thirteen European hospitals, spanned from July 15, 1994, to August 18, 2022, with follow-up until September 26, 2023. We enrolled MS patients who had serum samples collected within 12 months from disease onset and before initiating DMTs. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate the risk of relapse-associated worsening (RAW), progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. Of the 725 patients included, median age was 34.2 years (IQR, 27.6-42.4), and 509 patients (70.2%) were female. Median follow-up duration was 6.43 years (IQR, 4.65-9.81). Higher sNfL values associated with an elevated risk of RAW (HR of 1.45; 95% CI 1.19-1.76; P < 0.001), PIRA (HR of 1.43; 95% CI 1.13-1.81; P = 0.003), and reaching an EDSS of 3 (HR of 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.85; P < 0.001). Moreover, higher sGFAP levels were linked to a higher risk of achieving an EDSS score of 3 (HR of 1.36; 95% CI 1.06-1.74; P = 0.02) and, in patients with low sNfL values, to PIRA (HR of 1.86; 95% CI 1.01-3.45; P = 0.04). We further examined the combined effect of sNfL and sGFAP levels. Patients with low sNfL and sGFAP values (NLGL) exhibited a low risk of all outcomes and served as reference. Untreated patients with high sNfL levels showed a higher risk of RAW, PIRA, and reaching an EDSS of 3. Injectable or oral DMTs reduced the risk of RAW in these patients but failed to mitigate the risk of PIRA and reaching an EDSS of 3. Conversely, high-efficacy DMTs counteracted the heightened risk of these outcomes, except for the risk of PIRA in patients with high sNfL and sGFAP levels. Patients with low sNfL and high sGFAP values (NLGH) showed an increased risk of PIRA and achieving an EDSS of 3, which remained unchanged with either high-efficacy or other DMTs. In conclusion, evaluating sNfL and sGFAP levels at disease onset in MS may identify distinct phenotypes associated with diverse immunological pathways of disability acquisition and therapeutic response.

Monreal E ，Fernández-Velasco JI ，Álvarez-Lafuente R ，Sainz de la Maza S ，García-Sánchez MI ，Llufriu S ，Casanova B ，Comabella M ，Martínez-Yélamos S ，Galimberti D ，Ramió-Torrentà L ，Martínez-Ginés ML ，Aladro Y ，Ayuso L ，Martínez-Rodríguez JE ，Brieva L ，Villarrubia N ，Eichau S ，Zamora J ，Rodero-Romero A ，Espiño M ，Blanco Y ，Saiz A ，Montalbán X ，Tintoré M ，Domínguez-Mozo MI ，Cuello JP ，Romero-Pinel L ，Ghezzi L ，Pilo de la Fuente B ，Pérez-Miralles F ，Quiroga-Varela A ，Rubio L ，Rodríguez-Jorge F ，Chico-García JL ，Sainz-Amo R ，Masjuan J ，Costa-Frossard L ，Villar LM ... -  《-》

Biomarkers of response to ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

To ascertain the changes of serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) values in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients treated with ocrelizumab and their association with treatment response. Multicenter prospective study including 115 RRMS patients initiating ocrelizumab treatment between February 2020 and March 2022 followed during a year. Serum samples were collected at baseline and every 3 months to measure sNfL and sGFAP levels using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology. Based on age and body mass index, sNfL values were standardized using z-score. NEDA (non-evidence of disease activity)-3 status was defined for patients free of disease activity after a year of follow-up. Inflammation (INFL) was considered when new relapses occurred during follow-up or new MRI lesions were found at 1-year exploration. PIRA (progression independent of relapse activity) was defined as disability progression occurring in the absence of relapses or new MRI activity. After a year on ocrelizumab, 85 patients (73.9%) achieved NEDA-3. Thirty patients did not achieve NEDA: 20 (17.4%) because of INFL and 10 (8.7%) because of PIRA. Of INFL patients, 6 (30.0%) had relapses, and 17 (85.0%) had at least one new MRI lesion at the 12-month examination. At baseline, INFL patients had higher sNfL (p = 0.0003) and sGFAP (p = 0.03) than the NEDA-3 group. PIRA patients mostly exhibited low sNfL and heterogeneous sGFAP levels. After a year, NEDA-3 and INFL patients showed similar decreases in sNfL (p < 0.0001) and sGFAP (p < 0.0001 for NEDA-3 and p = 0.001 for INFL ones). However, the decrease occurred earlier in NEDA-3 patients. Accordingly, sNfL > 1.5 z-score 3 months after ocrelizumab initiation indicated a higher risk of inflammation (OR = 13.6; p < 0.0001). Decrease in sGFAP values occurred later in both groups, with significant reductions observed at 12 months for INFL and 6 and 12 months for NEDA-3. No significant changes in sNfL or sGFAP were observed in PIRA patients. Ocrelizumab induced normalization of sNfL and sGFAP in the majority of NEDA-3 and inflammatory patients but did not cause changes in the PIRA group. Our data suggest that normalization of sNfL and sGFAP is associated with the lack of inflammatory-associated disease progression but it may not affect non-inflammatory PIRA.

Rodríguez-Jorge F ，Fernández-Velasco JI ，Villarrubia N ，Gracia-Gil J ，Fernández E ，Meca-Lallana V ，Díaz-Pérez C ，Sainz de la Maza S ，Pacheco EM ，Quiroga A ，Ramió-Torrentà L ，Martínez-Yélamos S ，Bau L ，Monreal E ，López-Real A ，Rodero-Romero A ，Borrega L ，Díaz S ，Eguía P ，Espiño M ，Chico-García JL ，Barrero FJ ，Martínez-Ginés ML ，García-Domínguez JM ，De la Fuente S ，Moreno I ，Sainz-Amo R ，Mañé-Martínez MA ，Caminero A ，Castellanos F ，Gómez López A ，Labiano-Fontcuberta A ，Ayuso L ，Abreu R ，Hernández MÁ ，Meca-Lallana J ，Martín-Aguilar L ，Muriel García A ，Masjuan J ，Costa-Frossard L ，Villar LM ... -  《Frontiers in Immunology》

Effect of Natalizumab on sNfL and sGFAP Levels in Multiple Sclerosis Patients.

Sainz-Amo R ，Rodero-Romero A ，Monreal E ，Chico-García JL ，Rodríguez-Jorge F ，Fernández-Velasco JI ，Villarrubia N ，Veiga-González JL ，de la Maza SS ，Masjuan J ，Costa-Frossard L ，Villar LM ... -  《INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES》

Azathioprine for people with multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated, chronic, inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, impacting around 2.8 million people worldwide. Characterised by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, it represents a substantial global health burden, affecting people, predominantly women, at a young age (the mean age of diagnosis is 32 years). Azathioprine is used to treat chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and it is used in clinical practice as an off-label intervention for MS, especially where access to on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for MS is limited. Given this, a review of azathioprine's benefits and harms would be timely and valuable to inform shared healthcare decisions. To evaluate the benefits and harms of azathioprine (AZA) for relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), compared to other disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), placebo or no treatment. Specifically, we will assess the following comparisons. AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo as first-choice treatment for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo for relapsing forms of MS when switching from another DMT AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo as first-choice treatment for progressive forms of MS AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo for progressive forms of MS when switching from another DMT SEARCH METHODS: We conducted an extensive search for relevant literature using standard Cochrane search methods. The most recent search date was 9 August 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting 12 months or more that compared azathioprine versus DMTs, placebo or no intervention in adults with MS. We considered evidence from non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) as these studies may provide additional evidence not available from RCTS. We excluded cluster-randomised trials, cross-over trials, interrupted time series, case reports and studies of within-group design with no control group. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. There were three outcomes we considered to be critical: disability, relapse and serious adverse events (SAEs, as defined in the studies). We were also interested in other important outcomes: quality-of-life (QoL) impairment (mental score), short-term adverse events (gastrointestinal disorders), long-term adverse events (neoplasms) and mortality. We included 14 studies: eight RCTs (1076 participants included in meta-analyses) and six NRSIs (1029 participants). These studies involved people with relapsing and progressive MS. Most studies included more women (57 to 83%) than men, with participants' average age at the onset of MS being between 29.4 and 33.4 years. Five RCTs and all six NRSIs were conducted in Europe (1793 participants); two RCTs were conducted in the USA (126 participants) and one in Iran (94 participants). The RCTs lasted two to three years, while NRSIs looked back up to 10 years. Four studies received some funding or support from commercial interests and five were funded by government or philanthropy; the other five provided no information about funding. There are three ongoing studies. Comparison groups included other DMTs (interferon beta and cyclosporine A), placebo or no treatment. Below, we report on azathioprine as a 'first choice' treatment compared to interferon beta for people with relapsing MS. None of the studies reported on any critical or important outcome for this comparison for progressive MS. No study was retrieved comparing azathioprine to placebo or other DMTs for either relapsing or progressive MS. Furthermore, the NRSIs did not provide information not already covered in the RCTs. Azathioprine as a first-choice treatment compared to other DMTs (specifically, interferon beta) for relapsing MS - The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of azathioprine on the number of people with disability progression over two years compared to interferon beta (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.58; 1 RCT, 148 participants; very low certainty evidence). - Azathioprine may decrease the number of people with relapses over a one- to two-year follow-up compared to interferon beta (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.86; 2 RCTs, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). - Azathioprine may result in a possible increase in the number of people with SAEs over two years in comparison with interferon beta (RR 6.64, 95% CI 0.35 to 126.27; 1 RCT, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). - The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of azathioprine on the number of people with the short-term adverse event of gastrointestinal disorders over two years compared to interferon beta (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 185.57; 2 RCTs, 242 participants; very low certainty evidence). We found no evidence comparing azathioprine to other DMTs for QoL impairment (mental score), long-term adverse events (neoplasms) or mortality. Azathioprine has been proposed as an alternative treatment for MS when access to approved, on-label DMTs is limited, especially in resource-limited settings. The limited evidence available suggests that azathioprine may result in a modest benefit in terms of relapse frequency, with a possible increase in SAEs, when compared to interferon beta-1b, for people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The evidence for the effect on disability progression and short-term adverse events is very uncertain. Caution is required in interpreting the conclusions of this review since our certainty in the available evidence on the benefits and harms of azathioprine in multiple sclerosis is low to very low, implying that further evidence is likely to change our conclusions. An important limitation we noted in the available evidence is the lack of long-term comparison with other treatments and the failure of most studies to measure outcomes that are important to people with multiple sclerosis, such as quality of life and cognitive decline. This is especially the case in the evidence relevant to people with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis.

Ridley B ，Nonino F ，Baldin E ，Casetta I ，Iuliano G ，Filippini G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》