RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.07.24303938
DO 10.1101/2024.03.07.24303938
A1 Kang, Matthew JY
A1 Grewal, Jasleen
A1 Eratne, Dhamidhu
A1 Malpas, Charles
A1 Chiu, Wei-Hsuan
A1 Katisko, Kasper
A1 Solje, Eino
A1 Santillo, Alexander F
A1 Mitchell, Philip B.
A1 Hopwood, Malcolm
A1 Velakoulis, Dennis
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938.abstract
AB Background Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are biomarkers of neuronal injury measurable in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood. Despite their potential as diagnostic tests for neurodegenerative disorders, it is unclear how they behave in mood and anxiety disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether NfL and GFAP concentrations were altered in adults with mood and anxiety disorders compared to healthy controls.Methods The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023434617). We followed the PRISMA guidelines, searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase up to the 31/05/2023, and assessed relevant studies and their risk of bias. The primary outcome was the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of NfL and GFAP concentrations, which was pooled using a random-effects model adopting the restricted maximum likelihood estimator.Results Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria, comprising of 2327 individuals (695 major depression, 502 bipolar disorder, and 1130 controls). When we compared people with major depression and controls, there was no difference in NfL (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI: -0.10, 0.68) nor GFAP (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI: -0.74, 1.68). In people with bipolar disorder, NfL was significantly elevated compared to controls (SMD = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.99). However, the subgroup analysis including more sensitive assay kits (blood Simoa and CSF ELISA), found no significant difference (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.85). Only one study studied GFAP in bipolar disorder. No studies explored NfL nor GFAP concentrations in anxiety disorders.Discussion We found that NfL and GFAP concentrations were not elevated in depression. In bipolar disorder, NfL concentration was elevated, though not in the sensitivity analysis. Our study informs clinicians about how to interpret these emerging biomarkers in determining whether a person’s symptoms are caused by a neurodegenerative or mood disorder.Competing Interest StatementPBM has received remuneration from Janssen (Australia) for advisory board membership and lectures in the last 3 years.Funding StatementMatthew Kang is supported by the Research Training Program Scholarship (stipend) from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne with contributions from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Ramsay Health Research Foundation Translation Challenge. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study used only openly available or de-identified human data.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData available at reasonable request