Neurofilament Biomarkers in Neurology: From Neuroinflammation to Neurodegeneration, Bridging Established and Novel Analytical Advances with Clinical Practice

Le résumé fourni par la source

Neuroaxonal damage underlies permanent disability in various neurological conditions, both neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative. It is crucial to accurately quantify and monitor axonal injury using biomarkers to evaluate disease progression and treatment effectiveness and offer prognostic insights. Neurofilaments (NFs), and especially neurofilament light chain (NfL), show promise for this purpose, as their levels increase with neuroaxonal damage in both cerebrospinal fluid and blood, independent of specific causal pathways. Recent advances in ultrasensitive immunoassays enable the reliable detection of NFs in blood, transforming them from research tools into clinically applicable measures. In multiple sclerosis (MS), serum NfL correlates with disease activity, treatment response, and long-term disability, and may complement MRI in monitoring subclinical progression. In MS, NfL is primarily emerging as a marker of disease activity and treatment response; in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), it has progressed further, being integrated into clinical trials as a pharmacodynamic endpoint and considered by regulatory agencies as a drug development tool. Additionally, NFs are increasingly being investigated in Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders, though their disease specificity is limited. Ongoing challenges include older and novel assay harmonization, normative range interpretation, biological and analytical variability, and integration with other molecular and imaging biomarkers. This critical narrative review synthesizes the existing literature on NFs as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers and discusses their role in therapeutic development and precision medicine in neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.