Hongyu Zhou

BACKGROUND: Peripheral glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) are sensitive markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal damage. Previous studies with highly selected participants have shown that peripheral GFAP and NfL levels are elevated in the pre-clinical phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia. However, the predictive value of GFAP and NfL for dementia requires more evidence from population-based cohorts. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study to evaluate UK Biobank participants enrolled from 2006 to 2010 using plasma GFAP and NfL measurements measured by Olink Target Platform and prospectively followed up for dementia diagnosis. Primary outcome was the risk of clinical diagnosed dementia. Secondary outcomes were cognition. Linear regression was used to assess the associations between peripheral GFAP and NfL with cognition. Cox proportional hazard models with cross-validations were used to estimate associations between elevated GFAP and NfL with risk of dementia. All models were adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: A subsample of 48,542 participants in the UK Biobank with peripheral GFAP and NfL measurements were evaluated. With an average follow-up of 13.18 ± 2.42 years, 1312 new all-cause dementia cases were identified. Peripheral GFAP and NfL increased up to 15 years before dementia diagnosis was made. After strictly adjusting for confounders, increment in NfL was found to be associated with decreased numeric memory and prolonged reaction time. A greater annualized rate of change in GFAP was significantly associated with faster global cognitive decline. Elevation of GFAP (hazard ratio (HR) ranges from 2.25 to 3.15) and NfL (HR ranges from 1.98 to 4.23) increased the risk for several types of dementia. GFAP and NfL significantly improved the predictive values for dementia using previous models (area under the curve (AUC) ranges from 0.80 to 0.89, C-index ranges from 0.86 to 0.91). The AD genetic risk score and number of APOE*E4 alleles strongly correlated with GFAP and NfL levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that peripheral GFAP and NfL are potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis of dementia. In addition, anti-inflammatory therapies in the initial stages of dementia may have potential benefits.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the safety and explore potential efficacy of batoclimab administered subcutaneously in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG). METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel phase II study was conducted. First, in the double-blinded treatment period, eligible patients received batoclimab (680 mg), batoclimab (340 mg), or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36. In the open-label treatment period, patients received batoclimab (340 mg) on days 50, 64, and 78. In the follow-up period, patients were examined on days 92, 106, and 120. The primary endpoint was Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score change on day 43 from baseline. RESULTS: In total, 30 eligible patients were enrolled, with 11, 10, and 9 patients in the batoclimab 680 mg, batoclimab 340 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. MG-ADL score changes from baseline to day 43 were -2.2 ± 0.9, -4.7 ± 0.6, and -4.4 ± 1.0 in the placebo, batoclimab 340 mg, and 680 mg groups, respectively. Similar changes were observed in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis, Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life scores in the placebo, batoclimab 340 mg, and 680 mg groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement on day 43 was higher in the batoclimab groups. On day 120, all four scales in the placebo group had more significant improvement compared with the batoclimab groups, with total serum IgG levels reaching a plateau. No death or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to study discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Batoclimab is effective and safe in Chinese patients with gMG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346888) on 15 April 2020, with the first patient enrolled on 23 July 2020.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane review "Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12).More than 80% of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience a relapsing-remitting disease course. Approximately 10 years after disease onset, an estimated 50% of individuals with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) convert to secondary progressive MS. MS causes a major socioeconomic burden for the individual patient and for society. Effective treatment that reduces relapse frequency and prevents progression could impact both costs and quality of life and help to reduce the socioeconomic burden of MS. Alternative and more effective MS treatments with new modes of action and good safety are needed to expand the current treatment repertoire. It has been shown that B lymphocytes are involved in the pathophysiology of MS and rituximab lyses B-cells via complement-dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Current clinical trials are evaluating the role of rituximab as a B-cell depletion therapy in the treatment of RRMS. OBJECTIVES: The safety and effectiveness of rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon-β (IFN-β), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) to reduce disease activity for people with RRMS were assessed. SEARCH METHODS: The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (9 August 2013). We checked the references in identified trials and manually searched the reports (2004 to August 2013) from neurological associations and MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with researchers who were participating in trials on rituximab and contacted Genentech, BiogenIdec and Roche. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised, double-blind, controlled parallel group clinical trials with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved DMDs for patients with RRMS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. Principal investigators of included studies were contacted for additional data or confirmation of data. MAIN RESULTS: One trial involving 104 adult RRMS patients with an entry score ≤ 5.0 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and at least one relapse during the preceding year was included. This trial evaluated rituximab as monotherapy versus placebo, with a single course of 1000 mg intravenous rituximab (on day 1 and day 15). A significant attrition bias was found at week 48 (24.0%). Patients receiving rituximab had a significant reduction in total number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at week 24 (mean number 0.5 versus 5.5; relative reduction 91%) and in annualised rate of relapse at week 24 (0.37 versus 0.84) but not at week 48 (0.37 versus 0.72). Disability progression was not included as an outcome in this trial. More patients in the rituximab group had adverse events within the 24 hours after the first infusion (78.3% versus 40.0%), such as chills, headache, nausea, pyrexia, pruritus, fatigue, throat irritation, pharyngolaryngeal pain, and most were mild-to-moderate events (92.6%). The most common infection-associated adverse events (> 10% in the rituximab group) were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. Among them, only urinary tract infections (14.5% versus 8.6%) and sinusitis (13.0% versus 8.6%) were more common in the rituximab group. One ongoing trial was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of rituximab as a disease-modifying therapy for RRMS because only one RCT was included. The quality of the study was limited due to high attrition bias, the small number of participants, and short follow-up. The beneficial effects of rituximab for RRMS remain inconclusive. However, short-term treatment with a single course of rituximab was safe for most patients with RRMS. Mild-to-moderate infusion-associated adverse events were common, as well as nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. The potential benefits of rituximab for treating RRMS need to be evaluated in large-scale studies that are of high quality along with long-term safety.