
==== Front
eBioMedicine
EBioMedicine
eBioMedicine
2352-3964
Elsevier

S2352-3964(24)00359-1
10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105323
105323
Articles
Prognostic clinical and biological markers for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease progression: validation and implications for clinical trial design and analysis
Benatar Michael mbenatar@miami.edu
a∗
Macklin Eric A. b
Malaspina Andrea c
Rogers Mary-Louise d
Hornstein Eran e
Lombardi Vittoria c
Renfrey Danielle d
Shepheard Stephanie d
Magen Iddo e
Cohen Yahel e
Granit Volkan a
Statland Jeffrey M. f
Heckmann Jeannine M. g
Rademakers Rosa hi
McHutchison Caroline A. jk
Petrucelli Leonard i
McMillan Corey T. l
Wuu Joanne jwuu@miami.edu
a∗
on behalf of the
CReATe Consortium PGB1 Study InvestigatorsBenatar Michael
Granit Volkan
Statland Jeffrey M.
Heckmann Jeannine M.
McMillan Corey T.
Elman Lauren
Ravits John
Katz Jonathan
Trivedi Jaya
Swenson Andrea
Burns Ted M.
Caress James
Jackson Carlayne
Maiser Samuel
Pioro Erik P.
So Yuen

a Department of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
b Departments of Neurology and Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
c UCL Queen Square Motor Neuron Disease Center, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London, UK
d Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
e Department of Molecular Genetics and Molecular Neuroscience, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
f Department of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
g Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa
h VIB Center for Molecular Neurology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
i Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
j School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
k Euan MacDonald Centre for Motor Neuron Disease Research, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
l Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
∗ Corresponding author. Department of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14 Street, CRB Suite 1300, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. mbenatar@miami.edujwuu@miami.edu
12 9 2024
10 2024
12 9 2024
108 1053238 2 2024
11 8 2024
21 8 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Summary

Background

With increasing recognition of the value of incorporating prognostic markers into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trial design and analysis plans, there is a pressing need to understand which among the prevailing clinical and biochemical markers have real value, and how they can be optimally used.

Methods

A subset of patients with ALS recruited through the multi-center Phenotype-Genotype-Biomarker study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02327845) was identified as “trial-like” based on meeting common trial eligibility criteria. Clinical phenotyping was performed by evaluators trained in relevant assessments. Serum neurofilament light (NfL) and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy (pNfH), urinary p75ECD, plasma microRNA-181, and an array of biochemical and clinical measures were evaluated for their prognostic value. Associations with functional progression were estimated by random-slopes mixed models of ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) score. Associations with survival were estimated by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. Potential sample size savings from adjusting for given biomarkers in a hypothetical trial were estimated.

Findings

Baseline serum NfL is a powerful prognostic biomarker, predicting survival and ALSFRS-R rate of decline. Serum NfL <40 pg/mL and >100 pg/mL correspond to future ALSFRS-R slopes of ∼0.5 and ∼1.5 points/month, respectively. Serum NfL also adds value to the best available clinical predictors, encapsulated by the European Network to Cure ALS (ENCALS) predictor score. In models of functional decline, the addition of NfL yields ∼25% sample size saving above those achieved by inclusion of either clinical predictors or ENCALS score alone. The prognostic value of serum pNfH, urinary p75ECD, and plasma miR-181ab is more limited.

Interpretation

Among the multitude of biomarkers considered, only blood NfL adds value to the ENCALS prediction model and should be incorporated into analysis plans for all ongoing and future ALS trials. Defined thresholds of NfL might also be used in trial design, for enrichment or stratified randomisation, to improve trial efficiency.

Funding

10.13039/100000002 NIH (U01-NS107027, U54-NS092091). ALSA (16-TACL-242).

Keywords

Prognostic biomarkers
Context-of-use
ALS clinical trials
Neurofilament
==== Body
pmc Research in context

Evidence before this study

The phenotypic heterogeneity of ALS poses a challenge for clinical trials, making it more difficult to discern therapeutic effects of investigational agents amidst the noise of natural variability. Prognostic markers are important tools to help mitigate this issue. A host of clinical markers and putative biomarkers have been proposed to have prognostic value, but their relative utility, especially when considered jointly, and the practical implications of their use, have not been well defined.

Added value of this study

Using a trial-like population from a natural history study, in which clinical trial-grade phenotypic data and multi-modal biomarker data were collected, we show that a subset of clinical factors, encapsulated by the ENCALS predictor score, and serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) are the most powerful prognostic markers when considering either ALSFRS-R functional decline or permanent assisted ventilation (PAV)/tracheostomy-free survival. Importantly, serum NfL adds prognostic value even after adjusting for the ENCALS score, yielding an additional sample size saving of ∼27% in a hypothetical future clinical trial. While serum phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (pNfH), urinary p75ECD, and plasma miR-181ab each holds some prognostic value, when considered together with the ENCALS score and serum NfL, only p75ECD may yield additional but modest sample size saving.

Implications of all the available evidence

Blood NfL is a validated biomarker for multiple contexts-of-use. As a prognostic marker, it should be used together with clinical predictors, such as the ENCALS predictor score, in all ongoing and future ALS clinical trials. The utility of urinary p75ECD and plasma miR-181ab is less clear. Serum pNfH, as well as serum uric acid, albumin, creatinine, and C-reactive protein (CRP), provide no additional prognostic information.

Introduction

Clinical trials in the field of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) must consider the phenotypic heterogeneity of disease as well as the related challenge that clinically meaningful outcomes, such as the rate of functional decline and survival, are typically insufficiently sensitive to detect therapeutic effect in the early- and mid-phases of drug development. Biofluid biomarkers that are fit-for-purpose, however, may help to meaningfully address this problem.1 In patients with clinically manifest ALS (as opposed to the pre-symptomatic population at elevated risk for ALS, which is beyond the scope of this paper), prognostic biomarkers might be used in three broad ways to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials. From a study design perspective, they may be used as eligibility criteria to enrich for a population, in which a therapeutic effect might be most apparent, or to stratify randomisation. They may also be used analytically to adjust for phenotypic heterogeneity, thereby reducing the sample size needed to adequately power a trial using clinical outcome measures.2 These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and indeed could be combined, depending on the goals of a particular trial. In addition, response biomarkers might be used to demonstrate target engagement or pharmacodynamic effect, and perhaps even serve as surrogates that are reasonably likely to predict a future clinical benefit.

There remains, however, a significant gap between biomarker discovery, analytic validation, and preliminary reports of biomarker performance in samples of convenience on the one hand, and clinical validation on the other hand. The latter entails demonstrating the utility of a biomarker for a well-defined context-of-use in a large, carefully phenotyped clinical cohort.

Prior studies have identified clinical parameters predictive of disease progression2 or survival.2,3 Moreover, among patients with ALS, neurofilament light chain (NfL) has emerged as the lead prognostic and response biomarker4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for a number of reasons: NfL can reliably be measured in blood, there is a high correlation between blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations, and empiric data support these contexts-of-use based on results from serum or plasma. There is, however, also persistent interest in the potential prognostic value of other biomarkers, including blood phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (pNfH)9; urinary p75 neurotrophin receptor extracellular domain (p75ECD)10; microRNA-181 (miR-181)11; and an array of analytes, such as uric acid,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 albumin,16 creatinine,16,20,21 and C-reactive protein (CRP),8,22,23 that are routinely quantified in the clinical arena.

In this study, we sought to clinically validate the utility of putative prognostic biofluid biomarkers in the context of established clinical prognostic factors. The rationale is that a prognostic biomarker would only be worth quantifying if it adds value to what can be learned from known and readily available clinical parameters. Furthermore, a head-to-head comparison of clinical markers and molecular biomarkers revealed their relative contributions to clinical trial design, analysis, and result interpretation. Finally, we characterised the longitudinal trajectories of a subset of biomarkers, to inform their potential future use as response biomarkers. While prognostic clinical measures and biomarkers may have value in the clinical arena, such individual use of these markers is beyond the scope of the current investigation which is focused on the clinical trial utility of these markers.

Methods

Study population

Patients with ALS were enrolled (between 2014 and 2019) at 12 centers in the United States and 1 center in South Africa through the prospective Phenotype-Genotype-Biomarker (PGB) study (registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02327845) of the Clinical Research in ALS and Related Disorders for Therapeutic Development (CReATe) Consortium. The PGB study enrolled 705 patients with ALS (n = 472), primary lateral sclerosis (n = 47), progressive muscular atrophy (n = 20), hereditary spastic paraplegia (n = 162) and other related disorders (n = 4). The goal was to evaluate participants serially over a period of 1.5–2 years to acquire longitudinal phenotypic data. Those with ALS, ALS-FTD and PMA were to be seen at Baseline, and Months 3, 6, 12 and 18; those with PLS, HSP and multisystem proteinopathy were to be seen at Baseline and Months 6, 12, 18 and 24. Biological samples (blood and urine, as well as CSF when willing) were collected at all study visits. Periodic medical record reviews, in addition to direct communication with patients, were performed as needed to ascertain the timing of survival endpoint (permanent assisted ventilation [PAV; non-invasive ventilation >23 h/day], tracheostomy, or death).

While PGB was designed to be broadly inclusive, the subset of patients with ALS who met common trial eligibility criteria were designated as “trial-like” and served as the basis for this report. Key inclusion/exclusion criteria included: diagnosis of ALS according to El Escorial criteria, permitting those with cognitive or behavioural impairment (ALSci or ALSbi, respectively), but excluding ALS-FTD; less than 3 years from onset of weakness; and an erect slow vital capacity (SVC) of ≥50% predicted. All patients with ALS in PGB who met these criteria were included in the current report.

Clinical assessments

The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), a 48-point scale that includes bulbar, gross motor, fine motor, and respiratory domains,24 was the principal measure of functional status. Symptom onset was defined based on the first appearance of weakness or impaired motor function. The estimated rate of change in ALSFRS-R between symptom onset and baseline (ΔFRS), was defined as (48-baseline ALSFRS-R/months since symptom onset).25 Respiratory muscle function was quantified with slow vital capacity (SVC) in the erect position. At the U.S. sites and at the Cape Town site, respectively, alternate forms (A, B, C) of the North American and South African versions of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS), including informant report, were used to evaluate cognitive and behavioural function.26 All evaluators were trained and certified for the performance of each of these outcome measures. Biological sex, as well as race and ethnicity, were self-reported.

Ethics

The University of Miami institutional review board (IRB), which served as the central IRB for CReATe, approved the study for all US sites study (protocol # 20160603), and the University of Cape Town Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study in South Africa (REF number 165/2017). The Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of the University of Tubingen approved the study in Germany (IEC-Project Number: 361/2017B01), but none of the Tubingen participants met eligibility criteria for this analysis. All participants provided written informed consent.

Biological samples

Biological specimens were collected, processed, and stored according to strict standard operating procedures. Briefly, blood was collected in serum-separating BD vacutainers and allowed to clot upright at room temperature for 1–2 h. Following centrifugation (1750 g for 10 min at 4 °C), serum was aliquoted into cryogenic sterile freestanding conical microtubes (Nalgene or Bio Plas Inc.) and stored at −80 °C. Plasma was collected in K2 EDTA tubes, centrifuged at 1750 g for 10 min at 4 °C within 2 h of collection, and aliquoted for storage at −80 °C. Urine was collected in a sterile collection cup, gently swirled, and transferred to cryovials for immediate storage at −80 °C.

Biomarker and genetic assays

Serum NfL and pNfH concentrations were quantified using the Simoa NfL and pNfH assays in the laboratory of an author (AM). Established protocols for NfL (Simoa Nf-L Advantage Kit-102258, Quanterix) and pNfH (Simoa pNF-Heavy Discovery Kit–102669) analysis were used. Each plate contained calibrators and quality controls. Samples were diluted to fall within the range of the standard curve.

Urinary p75ECD was quantified by ELISA in the laboratory of an author (MLR) as previously described.10 Briefly, urinary p75ECD was measured by a sandwich ELISA, that used a capture monoclonal antibody (MLR1 at 8 mg/mL) made to the extracellular region of p7527 in Carbonate–Carbonate coating buffer (Ph 9.6). Another monoclonal antibody (NGFR5) to p7528 was used as the detection antibody and biotinylated as per the manufacturer's instructions (Thermo Fisher Scientific Australia, #UG283022) and used at 2.0 mg/mL in the assay. Human p75ECD standard was from R&D Systems (Lys29-Asn250; #367-NR). BlockAce (BioRad, BUF-029) was used as blocking and sample buffer. The enzyme reaction was achieved using streptavidin horseradish peroxidase (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, #JIO16030084) diluted to 1.0 mg/mL and colour developed using tetramethylbenzidine (A:B; BioRad Australia, #1721067). The entire ELISA was accomplished as previously described29 on a Hamilton Starlet Robot, integrated with a Biotek 405 washer, and an MD reader (450 nm); two calibrator human urine samples with known p75ECD levels were included on each plate, and if the results from either had greater than 20% coefficient of variation, the results from the plate were rejected. The results were reported as ng p75ECD/mL urine and corrected by creatinine (mg/mL; measured by calorimetric method using Enzo Life Sciences Creatinine Kits (ADI-907-030A) as per the manufacturer's instructions). Samples with urinary creatinine below 0.3 ± 0.03 mg/mL or above 3.0 ± 0.3 mg/mL were rejected as per World Health Organization guidelines.30 Final results are reported as ng p75ECD/mg creatinine.

Total RNA was extracted from plasma using the miRNeasy Micro Kit (Qiagen cat. 217084) and quantified with a Qubit fluorometer using the RNA Broad Range Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific cat. Q10210). For small RNA next-generation sequencing, libraries were prepared from 7.5 ng of total RNA using the QIAseq miRNA Library Kit (cat. 331505) and QIAseq miRNA NGS 48 Index IL (Qiagen cat. 331592) by an experimenter who was blinded to the identity of samples. Precise linear quantification of miRNA gained by UMIs of random 12 nucleotides after 3′ and 5′ adapter ligation, within the reverse transcription primers. cDNA libraries were amplified by PCR for 22 cycles, with a 3′ primer that includes a six-nucleotide unique index, followed by on-bead size selection and cleaning. Library concentration was determined with a Qubit fluorometer (dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay Kit, Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. Q32851) and library size with TapeStation D1000 (Agilent, cat. Catalog number: Q32851). Libraries with different indices were multiplexed and sequenced on a NovaSeq SP100 (Illumina), with 75-bp single read and 6-bp index read. Human miRNA sequences were mapped using GeneGlobe (Qiagen), normalized with the DESeq2 package and corrected for the library preparation batch. Plasma miR-181a and miR-181b were quantified by small RNA next-generation sequencing in the laboratory of an author (EH) as previously described,11 and summarised as miR-181ab, the combined expression of miR-181a and miR-181b. Serum uric acid, albumin, creatinine, and CRP were assayed using the Roche Cobas C Analyzer in the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of Miami. All biomarker studies were performed blind to clinical outcomes.

The presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion was determined in the laboratory of an author (RR) using a two-step protocol, including a fluorescent PCR fragment-length analysis and a repeat-primed PCR, with previously described oligos (ThermoFisher), as described elsewhere.31 The PCR reactions (Qiagen) for both assays included Betaine and DMSO additives (MilliporeSigma). The FAM labeled products were run on a 3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) and sized with Genescan 400 using Genemapper software (ThermoFisher).

Statistics

Longitudinal change in ALSFRS-R total score, serum NfL, serum pNfH, and urinary p75ECD were estimated in unadjusted mixed model repeated-measures analyses with visits windowed to the closest planned assessment time (at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months) and in unadjusted mixed model random-slopes analyses using the observed assessment times. The repeated-measures model included a fixed effect of visit and assumed unstructured person-level variance-covariance among repeated observations. The random-slopes model included a fixed effect of time and assumed unstructured variance-covariance for the person-level random intercepts and slopes. Biomarker concentrations were log-transformed prior to analysis and estimates were back-transformed. Back-transformation of visit-specific estimates yield values on the original scale of measurement. Back-transformation of slopes or changes from baseline yield geometric mean ratios which were further transformed by subtracting 1 and multiplying by 100 to express as deviations in percentage change from 100%.

We examined an array of clinical measures (sex, onset age, bulbar onset, diagnostic delay, ΔFRS [estimated rate of change in ALSFRS-R between symptom onset and baseline],25 baseline age, ALSFRS-R total score, slow vital capacity, ECAS-derived scores, and ENCALS predictor score) and biofluid biomarkers (serum NfL, serum pNfH, urinary p75ECD, serum uric acid, serum albumin, serum creatinine, serum CRP, plasma miR-181ab) as potential prognostics of rate of disease progression as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and of PAV/tracheostomy-free survival. We derived five scores from baseline ECAS assessments: total score, ALS-specific score, ALS non-specific score, and dichotomous designations of cognitive impairment (ALSci) and behavioural impairment (ALSbi) defined according to the revised Strong criteria32 and implemented in the PGB study.33 ALSci and ALSbi designations were restricted to English-speaking participants for whom robust normative data permitted reliable designation.26 The ENCALS linear predictive model score3 (hereinafter “ENCALS predictor score” or “ENCALS score”) combines information from 8 clinical variables (ΔFRS, bulbar onset, diagnostic delay [months from symptom onset to diagnosis], age at onset, El Escorial definite ALS, presence of FTD, presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion, and percent predicted vital capacity). Plasma miR-181ab was evaluated as a continuous measure, split at the median (24,590 UMI in the current study), and as defined by Magen et al.11 where miR181-ab was defined as a poor prognostic when above the threshold of 39,300 UMI among those in the middle tertile of NfL concentration (NfL 59–109.8 pg/mL),11 and as defined by Magen et al. but using the median miR181ab value and the middle NfL tertile (44.8–80.8 pg/mL) from the current study.

Prognostic markers were assessed for their ability to predict the rate of progression in ALSFRS-R total score in random-slopes analyses and to predict PAV/tracheostomy-free survival by Kaplan–Meier product-limit estimates and by Cox proportional hazards regression. In survival analyses, time at risk began at the baseline visit (time zero) and continued to time last known alive or time of PAV, tracheostomy, or death, if observed. Each model included one prognostic. Continuous prognostics were evaluated both as continuous predictors after standardizing to unit variance and when divided into quartiles. We focused on analyses after dividing prognostics into quartiles (or fewer levels—e.g., for binary measures, where only 2 levels are possible) to avoid the strong assumption of a linear association with rate of progression and survival across the full range of a given prognostic and to permit comparison of all prognostics in a common framework. Models were either unadjusted, adjusted for established core clinical predictors (bulbar onset, ΔFRS, and diagnostic delay for functional decline; plus baseline age for survival), adjusted for ENCALS predictor score, or adjusted also for serum NfL. The adjusted models sharpened estimates by accounting for known sources of variation and addressed whether a given prognostic provided new information independent of known predictors of progression and survival. Wald confidence intervals were used for estimates from random-slopes models. Complementary log–log confidence intervals were used for estimates of median survival time. Profile likelihood confidence intervals were used for estimates of hazard ratios.

In addition to estimating the clinical utility of each potential prognostic biomarker, we quantified the proportional sample size saving that would result from adjusting for a given biomarker in a hypothetical clinical trial. Reductions in sample size requirements based on a normal approximation for a hypothetical clinical trial testing for slowing of ALSFRS-R progression, analyzed in a random slopes model, were estimated based on reductions in standard error estimates of the estimated slopes and resulting increases in the effect size after inclusion of a given prognostic marker as a linear predictor. The proportional savings in sample size assume a consistent but arbitrary allocation ratio, type 1 error control, and power between designs and an assessment schedule similar to the present cohort. For any given choice of allocation ratio, type 1 error control, and power, the relative sample size required for two trials with equivalent assessment schedule differs only as a function of the ratio of the respective effect sizes for tests of the primary outcome, in the present case the estimated slope of ALSFRS-R. Note that effect size ratios rather than variance ratios were used due to small variation in estimated slopes when adding covariates.

A post-hoc analysis of the association between serum NfL and rate of progression in ALSFRS-R total score was performed using a cubic smoothing spline through the empirical Bayes ALSFRS-R slope estimates from an unadjusted random-slopes analysis and using a partial-linear spline in a longitudinal random-slopes analysis. Knots for the partial-linear spline were chosen post-hoc, based on visual inspection, at 40 and 100 pg/mL to approximate the shape of the cubic smoothing spline.

Analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary NC) and R (version 4.0.3, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Comparison-wise p-values are reported with nominal significance at two-tailed p < 0.05. Results significant after correction by Holm-Bonferroni stepdown adjustment for multiple comparisons over 28 prognostic markers are indicated.

Role of funders

The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, statistical analysis, results interpretation, or writing of the report.

Results

Study population

A total of 203 patients with ALS were included, with a mean (±SD) age of 57.1 (±12) years and a slight male preponderance (55%). A genetic cause of ALS was identified in 24 (12%), most commonly a C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (n = 20; 10%). Median disease duration (time since symptom onset) at baseline was 14.4 months, with a mean SVC of 85% (±17) predicted (Table 1). ALSFRS-R declined by an average (±SE) of 0.89 (±0.05) points/month (Fig. 1a) with median (Q1–Q3) follow-up of 10.1 (5.8–16.3) months. SVC declined by an average (±SE) of 1.8% (±0.15) predicted per month. 93 (46%) patients reached a survival endpoint (PAV, tracheostomy, or death), with a median (Q1–Q3) survival time of 30.1 (17.4–47.7) months observed from follow-up of 17.4 (10.6–29.9) months. 110 patients were censored (25 study completion, 15 loss to follow-up, 11 withdrawal/dropout, and 59 administrative study closure).Table 1 Baseline demographic and key clinical features.

Characteristic	Total N = 203	
Sex		
 Male	112 (55.2%)	
 Female	91 (44.8%)	
Race		
 White	179 (88.2%)	
 Black	15 (7.4%)	
 Asian	4 (2.0%)	
 Other	5 (2.5%)	
Ethnicity		
 Hispanic/Latino	36 (17.7%)	
 Non-Hispanic/Latino	167 (82.3%)	
Gene with a pathogenic variant		
 C9orf72	20 (9.9%)	
 SOD1	3 (1.5%)	
 TARDBP	1 (0.5%)	
 [Unknown]a	179 (88.2%)	
Age at onset, years		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	57.1 ± 12.0 (15–82)	
Bulbar symptoms at onset		
 No	147 (72.4%)	
 Yes	56 (27.6%)	
Diagnostic delay, months		
 Median (Q1–Q3)	8.2 (5.2–13.8)	
Time from symptom onset to baseline, months		
 Median (Q1–Q3)	14.4 (10.5–22.5)	
Baseline ΔFRS, points/month		
 Median (Q1–Q3)	0.60 (0.4–0.9)	
Baseline age, years		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	58.5 ± 12.1 (17–83)	
Baseline El Escorial category		
 Clinically definite ALS	45 (22.2%)	
 Clinically probable ALS	95 (46.8%)	
 Other	63 (31.0%)	
Baseline ALSFRS-R total score		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	37.9 ± 5.7 (15–48)	
Baseline SVC, %predicted		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	85.3 ± 17.2 (52.0–135.5)	
Baseline ECAS total scoreb		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	110.2 ± 12.4 (44–130)	
Baseline ECAS ALS-specific scoreb		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	81.8 ± 10.3 (35–97)	
Baseline ECAS ALS non-specific scoreb		
 Mean ± SD (Range)	28.4 ± 3.7 (9–35)	
Baseline cognitive impairment, by ECAS		
 No	137 (87.8%)	
 Yes	19 (12.2%)	
 [n/a]c	47 (--)	
Baseline behavioural impairment, by ECAS		
 No	95 (84.8%)	
 Yes	17 (15.2%)	
 [n/a]d	91 (–)	
Survival duration from baseline, months		
 Median (Q1–Q3)	30.1 (17.4–47.7)	
PAV, tracheostomy, or death occurrence		
 No	110 (54.2%)	
 Yes	93 (45.8%)	
Number of sample collections		
 2	48 (23.6%)	
 3	56 (27.6%)	
 4	47 (23.2%)	
 5	52 (25.6%)	
SD, Standard deviation; Q1, 1st quartile; Q3, 3rd quartile; ECAS, Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen; SVC, Slow vital capacity; PAV, Permanent assisted ventilation.

a No pathogenic variant identified (by C9orf72 testing and whole genome sequencing) in known disease-causing genes.

b Among English speakers (n = 171).

c Not available, because a non-English version of ECAS was completed or if there was insufficient information to determine impairment status.

d Not available, because a non-English version of ECAS was completed, caregiver did not complete ECAS, or if there was insufficient information to determine impairment status.

Fig. 1 ALSFRS-R slope and its relationship to baseline NfL. (a) Random slopes model of ALSFRS-R over time, with errors bars showing 95% confidence intervals (CI). Faint grey dotted line illustrates the linear estimate of change in ALSFRS-R over time. (b) Relationship between baseline serum NfL (measured in duplicate) and future rate of progression of the ALSFRS-R (Spearman correlation coefficient = −0.57, 95% CI −0.66 to −0.47, p < 0.0001) among n = 203 study participants. The straight orange line shows the linear prediction. The bent blue line represents a partial-linear spline with knots chosen post-hoc at 40 and 100 pg/mL. The smooth green curve is a smoothing spline through the empirical Bayes slope estimates.

Biomarker profiles

Baseline serum NfL concentrations ranged from 9 to 214 pg/mL (Table 2) and correlated with subsequent rates of ALSFRS-R decline (Spearman r = −0.57, 95% CI [−0.66, −0.47], p < 0.0001, Fig. 1b). Over the course of follow-up, serum NfL increased by an average (95% CI) of 0.98% [0.57%, 1.38%] per month (Table 3, Fig. 2a). Baseline serum pNfH concentrations ranged from 3.4 to 4177 pg/mL (Table 2) and increased by an average of 0.45% [−0.12%, 1.03%] per month (Table 3, Fig. 2b). Baseline urinary p75ECD levels ranged from 1.5 to 16.2 ng/mg creatinine (Table 2) and increased by an average of 2.59% [2.01%, 3.17%] per month (Table 3, Fig. 2c). Baseline plasma miR-181ab (product of miR-181a and miR-181b) concentration ranged from 2875 to 431,004 unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) (Table 2). Baseline concentrations of serum uric acid, albumin, creatinine, and CRP are summarised in Table 2. Baseline biomarker results, stratified by C9orf72 status and by sex are summarised in eTable 1 and eTable 2 respectively, with longitudinal changes in biomarkers stratified by sex in eTable 3. Correlations among all prognostics at baseline are summarised in eTable 4.Table 2 Baseline biomarker data.

Biomarker	N	Mean ± SD	Median (Q1, Q3)	Range	
Serum NfL (pg/mL)	203	73.9 ± 47.0	67.9 (37.9, 92.5)	9.1–214	
Serum pNfH (pg/mL)	203	598 ± 718	267 (110, 924)	3.4–4177	
Serum NfL/pNfH ratio	203	0.52 ± 1.56	0.18 (0.09, 0.50)	0.020–20.9	
Urinary p75ECD (ng/mg creatinine)	160a	5.54 ± 2.42	5.05 (3.93, 6.44)	1.53–16.1	
Serum uric acid (mg/dL)	203	5.19 ± 1.31	5.00 (4.20, 6.20)	2.60–8.90	
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)	203	0.78 ± 0.20	0.77 (0.66, 0.90)	0.29–1.59	
Serum albumin (g/dL)	203	4.55 ± 0.34	4.50 (4.30, 4.80)	3.60–5.80	
Serum CRP (mg/dL)	203	0.27 ± 0.35	0.10 (0.10, 0.50)	0.10–2.30	
Plasma miR-181a (UMI)	201	451 ± 208	418 (312, 552)	124–1699	
Plasma miR-181b (UMI)	201	66.2 ± 31.4	61.2 (44.8, 79.7)	13.8–263	
Plasma miR-181ab (UMIˆ2)	201	34,663 ± 39,372	24,590 (13,638, 42,836)	3148–447,480	
UMI, unique molecular identifier.

a Urinary p75ECD only available from a subset of study participants.

Table 3 Longitudinal biomarker trajectories.

Biomarker	Increase per month, relative to baseline	
Mean	(95% CI)	p-value	
Serum NfL (pg/mL)a	0.98%	(0.57%, 1.38%)	<0.0001	
Serum pNfH (pg/mL)a	0.45%	(−0.12%, 1.03%)	0.12	
Serum NfL/pNfH ratio	0.44%	(−0.09%, 0.97%)	0.10	
Urinary p75ECD (ng/mg creatinine)	2.59%	(2.01%, 3.17%)	<0.0001	
Values are unadjusted for core clinical covariates.

a One substantial outlier, from the 18-month visit (i.e., visit 5) of a participant, was excluded.

Fig. 2 Longitudinal biomarker trajectories. Longitudinal trajectories of (a) serum NfL; (b) serum pNfH; and (c) urinary p75ECD. Y-axis shows percent change in each biomarker compared to baseline, plotted on a log scale. The faint grey dotted line illustrates the linear estimate of biomarker change over time. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), widened at later time points due to participant attrition over time and fewer biomarker data available. NfL and pNfH were measured in duplicate; p75ECD quantified with a median of 3 replicates. Single NfL and pNfH values from the 18-month visit of a single participant have been excluded (see footnote to Table 3 for detailed explanation).

Prognostic markers for survival

In univariate models, the strongest predictors of survival were the ENCALS score, baseline serum NfL, and ΔFRS. Median survival among those with ENCALS predictor scores in the lowest vs. highest quartiles (i.e., lowest vs. highest predicted risk of PAV/tracheostomy-free survival) were 48 vs. 17 months (Table 4, Fig. 3a). Median survival among those with ΔFRS slopes in the lowest vs. highest quartiles (i.e., slowest vs. fastest pre-baseline slope) were 47 vs. 17 months (Table 4, Fig. 3b). Median survival among those with baseline NfL concentrations in the lowest vs. highest quartiles were 49 vs. 17 months (Table 4, Fig. 3c). Median survival among those with baseline miR181ab above vs. below 24,590 UMI were 23 vs. 35 months (Table 4, Fig. 3d). Age at onset, bulbar onset, baseline ALSFRS-R, and baseline SVC %predicted also predicted survival (Table 4).Table 4 Prognostic markers of survival.

Prognostic marker (in quartiles or binary)	Unadjusted analysisa	Adjusted analysisa	
Estimated median survival (95% CI) in months,b by marker quartile	Covariates included: core clinical predictorsc	Covariate included: ENCALS predictor scored	
Q1/No	Q2	Q3	Q4/Yes	p-value	HR (95% CI) [Q4 vs Q1]e	p-value	HR (95% CI) [Q4 vs Q1]f	p-value	
Sex, male	25 (22–37)	–	–	31 (26–46)	0.62	1.13 (0.7–1.8)	0.61	0.98 (0.6–1.5)	0.91	
Age at onset, years	47 (31–48)	25 (21–37)	24 (17–37)	22 (16–34)	0.023	1.33 (0.3–6.2)	0.28	1.34 (0.7–2.6)	0.59	
Bulbar symptoms at onset	33 (30–46)	–	–	22 (17–27)	0.039	N/A	1.31 (0.8–2.0)	0.25	
Diagnostic delay	30 (22–37)	27 (20–48)	27 (22-ne)	56 (21-ne)	0.096	0.65 (0.1–3.1)	0.73	1.66 (0.7–3.7)	0.43	
Baseline ΔFRS	47 (34-ne)	35 (22–56)	30 (22–43)	17 (14–27)	<0.0001n	3.64 (1.3–10.5)	0.11	1.62 (0.7–3.7)	0.39	
Baseline age	46 (30–48)	23 (19–37)	25 (19–43)	30 (17–34)	0.073	0.46 (0.1–2.2)	0.10	1.21 (0.6–2.3)	0.23	
Baseline ALSFRS-R	22 (16–26)	24 (21–32)	48 (31-ne)	43 (31–48)	0.0010n	0.55 (0.3–1.1)	0.03	0.61 (0.3–1.1)	0.04	
Baseline SVC %predicted	20 (15–27)	31 (23–47)	34 (24-ne)	47 (27-ne)	0.0046	0.49 (0.3–0.9)	0.10	0.64 (0.3–1.2)	0.58	
Baseline ECAS totalg	31 (15–56)	30 (22–47)	31 (19–48)	48 (24-ne)	0.54	0.99 (0.5–2.1)	0.78	0.77 (0.4–1.6)	0.75	
Baseline ECAS ALS-specificg	37 (18-ne)	30 (20–47)	23 (17–49)	48 (26-ne)	0.14	1.12 (0.5–2.6)	0.12	0.88 (0.4–2.0)	0.17	
Baseline ECAS ALS non-specificg	25 (14–37)	47 (26–48)	30 (19-ne)	31 (23–48)	0.37	0.68 (0.3–1.4)	0.73	0.65 (0.3–1.3)	0.66	
Baseline cognitive impairmentg	30 (25–46)	–	–	37 (13-ne)	0.99	0.70 (0.3–1.5)	0.41	0.84 (0.3–1.7)	0.67	
Baseline behavioural impairmentg	34 (25–47)	–	–	18 (8-ne)	0.48	1.06 (0.4–2.4)	0.90	1.67 (0.7–3.6)	0.22	
Baseline ENCALS predictor score	48 (39-ne)	35 (26-ne)	24 (20–32)	17 (13–25)	<0.0001n	4.55 (1.5–14.7)	0.054	1.61 (0.3–7.4)	0.87	
Baseline serum NfL	49 (46-ne)	30 (23–35)	26 (17–39)	17 (13–22)	<0.0001n	7.71 (3.7–17.1)	<0.0001n	7.34 (3.7–15.8)	<0.0001n	
Baseline serum pNfH	43 (30-ne)	23 (17–37)	25 (23–46)	26 (19–47)	0.18	1.74 (1.0–3.2)	0.28	1.68 (1.0–3.0)	0.36	
Baseline urinary p75ECD	34 (24–46)	31 (21-ne)	22 (14-ne)	30 (19–48)	0.77	0.92 (0.4–1.9)	0.94	0.65 (0.3–1.3)	0.57	
Baseline serum uric acid	25 (21–37)	31 (15–46)	30 (23–34)	47 (25–56)	0.25	0.69 (0.4–1.3)	0.38	0.58 (0.3–1.1)	0.22	
Baseline serum creatinine	31 (21–46)	24 (19–48)	31 (22-ne)	30 (23–47)	0.99	0.87 (0.5–1.6)	0.89	0.95 (0.5–1.7)	0.97	
Baseline serum albumin	25 (20–35)	23 (19–52)	32 (22–47)	34 (27–47)	0.72	0.95 (0.5–1.8)	0.99	0.96 (0.5–1.8)	0.96	
Baseline serum CRP	30 (24–39)	26 (9-ne)	30 (22–47)	0.85	1.07 (0.6–1.8)	0.96	1.08 (0.6–1.7)	0.95	
Baseline plasma miR-181ab	35 (30-ne)	34 (24–52)	26 (20–47)	22 (17–30)	0.021	1.90 (1.0–3.6)	0.16	1.82 (1.0–3.3)	0.096	
Baseline miR-181ab > 39,300 UMIh	33 (26–48)	–	–	23 (17–32)	0.0062	1.55 (0.9–2.5)	0.075	1.55 (1.0–2.4)	0.050	
Baseline miR-181ab > 24,590 UMIi	35 (30–48)	–	–	23 (20–32)	0.016	1.65 (1.1–2.6)	0.030	1.73 (1.1–2.7)	0.014	
Baseline NfL + miR181ab poor Pxj	37 (30–48)	–	–	17 (15–21)	<0.0001n	2.69 (1.6–4.4)	0.0001n	2.61 (1.7–4.1)	<0.0001n	
Baseline NfL + miR181ab poor Pxk	47 (34–48)	–	–	20 (16–22)	<0.0001n	3.14 (2.0–5.1)	<0.0001n	3.19 (2.0–5.0)	<0.0001n	
Baseline NfL median splitl	47 (31–48)	–	–	20 (16–25)	<0.0001n	2.24 (1.4–3.6)	0.0006n	2.29 (1.5–3.6)	0.0002n	
Baseline NfL 4-level splitm	47 (46–52)	24 (19–31)	32 (14–18)	17 (15–22)	<0.0001n	4.28 (2.4–8.0)	0.0001n	4.12 (2.3–7.5)	0.0001n	
ne, not estimable.

a Survival analysis. Q1–Q4 indicate quartiles of continuous predictors, with higher quartiles representing higher values. Yes/No in column headings captures the presence/absence of binary predictors.

b Without inclusion of covariate or prognostic marker in the model, median survival (95% CI) = 30 (17–48) months.

c Core clinical predictors in survival analyses include bulbar onset, diagnostic delay, ΔFRS, and baseline age.

d ENCALS predictor score is derived from ΔFRS, bulbar onset, diagnostic delay, age at onset, SVC percent predicted, El Escorial definite ALS, presence of FTD, and presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion.

e These HRs compare Q4 to Q1 of each prognostic marker in a model that also adjusts for the core clinical predictors of survival. While the adjusted analyses include diagnostic delay, ΔFRS, and baseline age as linear covariates, the potential additional prognostic value of each of these predictors (see respective rows) is evaluated by contrasting top and bottom quartiles to detect possible non-linear effects.

f These HRs compare Q4–Q1 of each prognostic marker in a model that also adjusts for the ENCALS score as a linear covariate. The potential additional prognostic value of the ENCALS predictor score (see row) is evaluated by contrasting top and bottom quartiles to detect possible non-linear effects.

g Among English speakers (n = 171), or with cognitive/behavioural impairment status (n = 156).

h Threshold of 39,300 UMI in plasma as defined by Magen et al.11

i Median of 24,590 UMI in plasma in the current dataset.

j Poor prognosis based on published optimal combination of NfL and miR-181ab, in which a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >109.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >59.0 pg/mL and miR-181ab > 39,300 UMI).11

k Poor prognosis based on recalculated combination of NfL and miR-181ab using thresholds obtained from the current dataset; a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >80.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >44.8 pg/mL and miR-181ab > 24,590 UMI).

l Median serum NfL = 67.9 pg/mL.

m Serum NfL 4-level split is at the 33rd, 50th, and 67th percentiles (44.8 pg/mL, 67.9 pg/mL, and 80.8 pg/mL, respectively), i.e., tertiles and median, rather than quartiles, to mimic construction of the NfL + miR18ab measure.11

n p-value remains statistically significant after adjustment for multiplicity. Holm-Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported in eTable 7.

Fig. 3 Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Permanent assisted ventilation (PAV)- and tracheostomy-free survival for (a) the ENCALS predictor score, divided into quartiles; (b) ΔFRS, divided into quartiles; (c) baseline serum NfL, divided into quartiles; and (d) baseline plasma miR-181ab dichotomised at the median value of 24,590 UMI. The range of values for each clinical or biological marker within a defined quartile, as well as the number of observations at each time point, are shown below each KM plot. Shading represents pointwise log–log confidence intervals.

In Cox proportional hazards models of time to death or equivalent, we evaluated the prognostic utility of each clinical and biofluid marker when added as quartiles to multivariate models that included either a core set of clinical predictors (bulbar, ΔFRS, diagnostic delay, and baseline age) or the ENCALS predictor score (Table 4). Results from models with prognostic measures added as linear terms are summarised in eTable 5. When a given prognostic is included both as quartiles and as a linear term among the covariates, the results presented in Table 4 describe any non-linearity in the relationship with survival. Serum NfL remained the strongest predictor. For example, in a model that already includes the ENCALS predictor score, the hazard ratio (HR) for the fourth vs. first quartile values of NfL is 7.3 (Table 4). The addition of NfL as a linear term to an ENCALS-adjusted Cox model, yields a HR of 1.83 for every 1 standard deviation increase in NfL (eTable 5). To examine the prognostic value of plasma miR-181ab in these multivariate models, we considered multiple analytic approaches. The previously published approach, in which a higher miR-181ab is categorised as poor prognostic only for the middle tertile of NfL,11 reveals no prognostic value beyond that conferred by NfL alone, whether tertiles from a prior study or the current cohort were used. By contrast, dichotomising at the median value in this cohort (but not the threshold value identified in a prior study) added some prognostic value—with HRs of 1.65 and 1.73, respectively, when miR-181ab was added to the core set of clinical predictors and the ENCALS predictor score (Table 4). None of the other biomarker candidates considered—serum uric acid, albumin, creatinine, or CRP—added prognostic value in survival analyses (Table 4). Similarly, none of our measures of cognitive/behavioural impairment predicted survival (Table 4).

Prognostic markers for functional decline

In univariate random-slope models of ALSFRS-R decline, ΔFRS, diagnostic delay, ENCALS score, baseline NfL, and baseline pNfH were identified as prognostic markers (Table 5). Although not developed for predicting functional decline, the ENCALS model predicted differential rates of disease progression that ranged from −0.57 to −1.27 points/month among those with the lowest vs. highest quartile ENCALS scores (Table 5, unadjusted). NfL is also a powerful predictor of future functional decline, with slopes ranging from −0.41 to −1.49 points/month among those with the lowest vs. highest quartiles NfL values (Table 5). Results from models with prognostic measures added as linear terms are summarised in eTable 6.Table 5 Baseline prognostic markers of functional decline.

Baseline prognostic marker (in quartiles or binary)	Unadjusted analysisa	Adjusted analysisa	
ALSFRS-R slope (points/month): estimate (SE)b	p-value	ALSFRS-R slope (points/month): estimate (SE)b	p-value	
Q1/No	Q2	Q3	Q4/Yes	Q1/No	Q2	Q3	Q4/Yes	
Sex, male	−0.90 (−1.1, −0.74)	n/a	n/a	−0.88 (−1.0, −0.73)	0.80	−0.90 (−1.1, −0.75)	n/a	n/a	−0.88 (−1.0, −0.74)	0.83	
Age at onset	−0.74 (−0.95, −0.53)	−0.90 (−1.1, −0.70)	−1.00 (−1.2, −0.79)	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.67)	0.38	−0.87 (−1.1, −0.66)	−0.91 (−1.10, −0.72)	−0.95 (−1.1, −0.75)	−0.79 (−1.0, −0.56)	0.77	
Bulbar onset	−0.82 (−0.94, −0.70)	n/a	n/a	−1.07 (−1.3, −0.87)	0.036	−0.84 (−0.96, −0.72)	n/a	n/a	−1.02 (−1.2, −0.82)	0.14	
Diagnostic delay	−1.10 (−1.3, −0.090)	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.79)	−0.70 (−0.92, −0.48)	−0.73 (−0.93, −0.52)	0.016	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.78)	−0.93 (−1.10, −0.73)	−0.73 (−0.94, −0.51)	−0.89 (−1.1, −0.66)	0.38	
ΔFRS	−0.72 (−0.91, −0.54)	−0.83 (−1.0, −0.62)	−0.69 (−0.89, −0.48)	−1.37 (−1.6, −1.1)	<0.0001k	−0.87 (−1.1, −0.66)	−0.83 (−1.00, −0.62)	−0.66 (−0.86, −0.45)	−1.22 (−1.5, −0.98)	0.0036	
Age	−0.76 (−0.97, −0.55)	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.79)	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.69)	−0.89 (−1.1, −0.66)	0.47	−0.88 (−1.1, −0.68)	−0.99 (−1.20, −0.79)	−0.87 (−1.1, −0.66)	−0.80 (−1.0, −0.58)	0.63	
ALSFRS-R	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.75)	−0.92 (−1.1, −0.70)	−0.68 (−0.92, −0.45)	−0.93 (−1.1, −0.73)	0.31	−0.88 (−1.1, −0.67)	−0.93 (−1.10, −0.72)	−0.70 (−0.92, −0.47)	−1.00 (−1.2, −0.80)	0.24	
SVC %predicted	−1.08 (−1.3, −0.86)	−0.90 (−1.1, −0.70)	−0.85 (−1.1, −0.64)	−0.70 (−0.92, −0.48)	0.12	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.74)	−0.92 (−1.10, −0.72)	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.71)	−0.73 (−0.94, −0.52)	0.44	
ECAS totalc	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.76)	−0.77 (−1.0, −0.53)	−0.79 (−1.0, −0.55)	−0.84 (−1.1, −0.60)	0.54	−0.98 (−1.2, −0.76)	−0.72 (−0.95, −0.49)	−0.80 (−1.0, −0.57)	−0.92 (−1.1, −0.68)	0.38	
ECAS ALS-spec.c	−0.83 (−1.1, −0.60)	−0.84 (−1.1, −0.62)	−0.92 (−1.2, −0.68)	−0.81 (−1.1, −0.55)	0.92	−0.84 (−1.1, −0.61)	−0.81 (−1.00, −0.59)	−0.93 (−1.2, −0.70)	−0.85 (−1.1, −0.60)	0.89	
ECAS ALS non-spec.c	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.67)	−0.70 (−0.92, −0.48)	−0.98 (−1.2, −0.75)	−0.80 (−1.1, −0.54)	0.36	−0.87 (−1.1, −0.65)	−0.73 (−0.95, −0.52)	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.77)	−0.82 (−1.1, −0.56)	0.42	
Cog. impair.c	−0.83 (−0.96, −0.70)	n/a	n/a	−0.89 (−1.2, −0.54)	0.73	−0.83 (−0.95, −0.70)	n/a	n/a	−0.89 (−1.2, −0.54)	0.75	
Behav. impair.c	−0.78 (−0.93, −0.63)	n/a	n/a	−1.04 (−1.4, −0.66)	0.21	−0.76 (−0.90, −0.61)	n/a	n/a	−0.97 (−1.3, −0.61)	0.29	
ENCALS score	−0.57 (−0.76, −0.37)	−0.70 (−0.89, −0.51)	−1.02 (−1.2, −0.81)	−1.27 (−1.5, −1.1)	<0.0001k	−0.62 (−0.90, −0.34)	−0.71 (−0.90, −0.51)	−1.00 (−1.2, −0.79)	−1.23 (−1.5, −0.96)	0.021	
Serum NfL	−0.41 (−0.58, −0.24)	−0.67 (−0.84, −0.50)	−1.10 (−1.3, −0.92)	−1.49 (−1.7, −1.3)	<0.0001k	−0.44 (−0.60, −0.27)	−0.71 (−0.88, −0.54)	−1.08 (−1.3, −0.90)	−1.44 (−1.6, −1.2)	<0.0001k	
Serum pNfH	−0.68 (−0.88, −0.48)	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.74)	−0.82 (−1.0, −0.61)	−1.13 (−1.4, −0.91)	0.024	−0.70 (−0.89, −0.51)	−0.91 (−1.10, −0.71)	−0.86 (−1.1, −0.65)	−1.12 (−1.3, −0.91)	0.041	
Urinary p75ECD	−0.93 (−1.2, −0.70)	−0.75 (−1.0, −0.50)	−1.03 (−1.3, −0.79)	−0.97 (−1.2, −0.73)	0.44	−0.99 (−1.2, −0.77)	−0.76 (−1.00, −0.52)	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.73)	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.73)	0.50	
Serum uric acid	−0.96 (−1.2, −0.75)	−0.85 (−1.1, −0.63)	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.70)	−0.82 (−1.0, −0.60)	0.82	−0.98 (−1.2, −0.78)	−0.82 (−1.00, −0.61)	−0.93 (−1.1, −0.73)	−0.81 (−1.0, −0.60)	0.61	
Serum creatinine	−0.90 (−1.1, −0.69)	−0.89 (−1.1, −0.67)	−0.80 (−1.0, −0.57)	−0.95 (−1.2, −0.74)	0.81	−0.91 (−1.1, −0.71)	−0.94 (−1.20, −0.73)	−0.76 (−0.98, −0.54)	−0.93 (−1.1, −0.74)	0.61	
Serum albumin	−0.82 (−1.0, −0.61)	−0.87 (−1.1, −0.64)	−1.03 (−1.2, −0.85)	−0.71 (−0.98, −0.45)	0.23	−0.74 (−0.95, −0.54)	−0.83 (−1.00, −0.62)	−1.09 (−1.3, −0.92)	−0.76 (−1.0, −0.50)	0.039	
Serum CRPd	−0.85 (−0.97, −0.72)	−1.12 (−1.6, −0.66)	−0.97 (−1.2, −0.74)	0.38	−0.84 (−0.96, −0.72)	−1.08 (−1.5, −0.64)	−0.98 (−1.2, −0.77)	0.37	
Plasma miR-181ab	−0.71 (−0.92, −0.50)	−0.82 (−1.0, −0.61)	−0.92 (−1.1, −0.70)	−1.11 (−1.3, −0.89)	0.061	−0.71 (−0.91, −0.51)	−0.83 (−1.00, −0.63)	−0.95 (−1.2, −0.74)	−1.07 (−1.3, −0.86)	0.085	
miR-181ab > 39,300 UMIe	−0.80 (−0.93, −0.68)	n/a	n/a	−1.09 (−1.3, −0.89)	0.017	−0.82 (−0.94, −0.70)	n/a	n/a	−1.06 (−1.3, −0.87)	0.037	
miR-181ab > 24,590 UMIf	−0.76 (−0.91, −0.61)	n/a	n/a	−1.01 (−1.2, −0.86)	0.023	−0.77 (−0.91, −0.63)	n/a	n/a	−1.01 (−1.2, −0.86)	0.022	
NfL+miR181ab poor prognosisg	−0.69 (−0.80, −0.57)	n/a	n/a	−1.39 (−1.6, −1.2)	<0.0001k	−0.71 (−0.82, −0.60)	n/a	n/a	−1.34 (−1.5, −1.1)	<0.0001k	
NfL+miR181ab poor prognosish	−0.56 (−0.68, −0.43)	n/a	n/a	−1.28 (−1.4, −1.1)	<0.0001k	−0.59 (−0.72, −0.47)	n/a	n/a	−1.24 (−1.4, −1.1)	<0.0001k	
NfL med. spliti	−0.54 (−0.66, −0.41)	n/a	n/a	−1.28 (−1.4, −1.1)	<0.0001k	−0.58 (−0.70, −0.45)	n/a	n/a	−1.24 (−1.4, −1.1)	<0.0001k	
NfL 4-level splitj	−0.44 (−0.59, −0.30)	−0.73 (−0.94, −0.52)	−1.05 (0.11)	−1.41 (−1.6, −1.2)	<0.0001k	−0.48 (−0.63, −0.34)	−0.74 (−0.95, −0.53)	−1.05 (−1.3, −0.83)	−1.36 (−1.5, −1.2)	<0.0001k	
n/a, not applicable; ALS-spec., ALS-specific; non-spec., ALS non-specific; Cog. impair., cognitive impairment; Beh. impair., behavioral impairment; CRP, C-reactive protein.

a Random slopes model. ENCALS predictor score included in adjusted analysis. Q1–Q4 indicate quartiles of continuous predictors, with higher quartiles representing higher values. Yes/No in column headings captures the presence/absence of binary predictors.

b Without inclusion of covariate or prognostic marker in the model, ALSFRS-R slope (SE) = −0.89 (0.05) points/month.

c Among English speakers (n = 171), or with cognitive/behavioural impairment status (n = 156).

d More than 50% of the CRP values were below the lower limit of quantification and were imputed at 0.1 mg/dL.

e Threshold of 39,300 UMI in plasma as defined by Magen et al.11.

f Median of 24,590 UMI in plasma in the current dataset.

g Poor prognosis based on published optimal combination of NfL and miR-181ab, in which a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >109.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >59.0 pg/mL and miR-181ab > 39,300 UMI).11

h Poor prognosis based on recalculated combination of NfL and miR-181ab using thresholds obtained from the current dataset; a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >80.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >44.8 pg/mL and miR-181ab > 24,590 UMI).

i Median serum NfL = 67.9 pg/mL.

j Serum NfL 4-level split is at the 33rd, 50th, and 67th percentiles (44.8 pg/mL, 67.9 pg/mL, and 80.8 pg/mL, respectively), i.e., tertiles and median, rather than quartiles, to mimic construction of the NfL + miR-181ab measure.11

k p-value remains statistically significant after adjustment for multiplicity. Holm-Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported in eTable 7.

In multivariate models that already incorporate the ENCALS predictor score, quartiles of baseline serum NfL added substantial prognostic value, with the rate of ALSFRS-R progression ranging from −0.44 to −1.44 points/month among those with the lowest vs. highest quartile values. ΔFRS and serum pNfH added much less prognostic value. Irrespective of the analytic approach, plasma miR-181ab did not add prognostic value beyond that conferred by serum NfL (Table 5). None of the other clinical markers (including measures of cognitive and behavioural impairment), or biomarker candidates considered added prognostic value in random-slopes models of ALSFRS-R functional decline (Table 5).

Impact of prognostic markers on sample size savings for future clinical trials

For the outcome measure of ALSFRS-R slope, the ENCALS model yields a 9% sample size saving, compared to 30.9% for NfL alone (Table 6). The combination of ENCALS and NfL yields a ∼34% saving in sample size. In random slope models of ALSFRS-R that incorporate either the core clinical predictors plus NfL, or ENCALS predictor score plus NfL, the addition of urinary p75ECD yields an additional ∼4% sample size saving, suggesting a modest additional utility of this prognostic marker (with the caveat that this conclusion is based on incomplete baseline data for p75ECD in this sample). The addition of serum pNfH or plasma miR-181ab, however, yielded no additional sample size saving, indicating that in multivariate models that incorporate clinical predictors and NfL, these latter biomarkers add little prognostic value when the ALSFRS-R slope is the outcome measure (Table 6). None of the other clinical measures (including those of cognitive or behavioural impairment) or biomarker candidates yielded sample size savings when considered as prognostic markers.Table 6 Estimated total sample size savings in a random slopes model of ALSFRS-R progression that includes the prognostic marker and covariate(s).

Prognostic marker	Unadjusted	Covariate(s) included	
Core clinical predictorsa	ENCALS predictor scoreb	Core clinical predictorsa + NfL	ENCALS predictor scoreb + NfL	
ENCALS linear score	−9.0%	−10.4%	–	−33.6%	–	
Serum NfL	−30.9%	−33.4%	−33.6%	–	–	
Serum pNfH	−4.0%	−13.3%	−12.3%	−33.2%	−33.5%	
Urinary p75ECD	−7.6%	−13.2%	−16.4%	−37.2%	−37.5%	
Serum uric acid	−0.8%	−8.2%	−8.2%	−33.2%	−33.3%	
Serum creatinine	1.2%	−8.3%	−7.8%	−33.0%	−33.2%	
Serum albumin	1.9%	−8.1%	−7.4%	−33.2%	−33.4%	
Serum CRP	−0.3%	−10.3%	−9.3%	−33.5%	−33.4%	
Plasma miR-181ab	−2.0%	−9.7%	−10.6%	−34.2%	−35.4%	
NfL + miR181ab poor prognosisc	−20.7%	−9.9%	−24.8%	−34.5%	−34.1%	
NfL + miR181ab poor prognosisd	−25.1%	−9.3%	−28.9%	−33.8%	−34.9%	
NfL median splite	−26.5%	−29.2%	−29.4%	−34.2%	−34.4%	
NfL 4-level splitf	−31.4%	−33.8%	−33.4%	−34.8%	−34.6%	
Values indicate the combined percent sample size reduction when the prognostic identified by a row heading is added to covariates described in column headings, in a hypothetical clinical trial with ALSFRS-R as the outcome measure, assuming the experimental therapeutic has a 30% treatment effect.

a Core clinical predictors of functional decline include bulbar onset, diagnostic delay, and ΔFRS.

b ENCALS predictor score is derived from ΔFRS, bulbar onset, diagnostic delay, age at onset, SVC percent predicted, El Escorial definite ALS, presence of FTD, and presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion.

c Poor prognosis based on published optimal combination of NfL and miR-181ab, in which a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >109.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >59.0 pg/mL and miR-181ab > 39,300 UMI).11

d Poor prognosis based on recalculated combination of NfL and mIR-181ab, using thresholds obtained from the current dataset; a poor prognostic factor is defined as either (NfL >80.8 pg/mL) or (NfL >44.8 pg/mL and mIR-181ab > 24,590 UMI2).

e Median serum NfL = 67.9 pg/mL.

f Serum NfL 4-level split is at the 33rd, 50th, and 67th percentiles (44.8 pg/mL, 67.9 pg/mL, and 80.8 pg/mL, respectively), i.e., tertiles and median, rather than quartiles to mimic construction of the NfL + miR-181ab measure.11

A practical approach to incorporating NfL into trial design

The relationship between baseline NfL and future rate of functional decline, as measured by the slope of the ALSFRS-R, is not linear (Fig. 1b). In this dataset, the sigmoidal relationship yields an estimate of thresholds that might be used either as eligibility criteria (for trial enrichment) or to facilitate stratifying randomisation (to ensure equal balance of NfL-predicted faster and slower disease progression rates across treatment groups). Baseline NfL levels <40 pg/mL corresponded to a future ALSFRS-R slope of ∼0.5 points/month (i.e., slow progression), whereas baseline levels >100 pg/mL corresponded to a future ALSFRS-R slope of ∼1.5 points/month (i.e., fast progression). In the range from 40 to 100 pg/mL, ALSFRS-R slope declines quickly for each incremental increase in baseline serum NfL concentration.

Discussion

This study comprehensively evaluated leading biochemical prognostic biomarker candidates, alone and in combination, and examined their potential utility when combined with established and emerging clinical predictors. This multivariate approach is essential to achieving a fuller understanding of the practical value of candidate prognostic markers. Moreover, mindful that observational studies typically enrol slower progressing patients, for greatest relevance to the design and analysis of future trials we a priori focused our analysis on a trial-like population, the subset of PGB participants who met clinical trial eligibility criteria. Absent a similar biomarker study that utilises the placebo group from clinical trial(s), our approach is the most robust to date in providing clear answers about the utility of an array of prognostic biomarker candidates.

Serum NfL is a robust predictor of disease progression, whether the outcome is ALSFRS-R rate of decline or survival time. While the overlap in survival curves for the second and third quartiles of NfL (Fig. 3c), for example, suggests limited prognostic value for NfL in the mid-range of values when predicting survival, the relationship between NfL and future rate of functional decline is steepest in the mid-range of values (Fig. 1b). Moreover, not only does NfL provide greater prognostic value than the ENCALS predictor score, the combination of NfL and the ENCALS score yields more prognostic value than either NfL or ENCALS score alone. (Of note, we have not fully explored potential transformations of NfL data to optimise its performance as a prognostic marker beyond those displayed in Fig. 1. Future research using fractional polynomials or regression splines might further improve the value of NfL as a prognostic.34 We also acknowledge that some information is lost by dividing a continuous prognostic into categories and that cut points for quartiles will vary from one dataset to another. The quartiles provided here are intended to be descriptive of potential non-linearity in associations, not to be prescriptive of future handling of such prognostics.) Serum pNfH, on the other hand, has some prognostic value for functional decline, but not survival; and in models already adjusting for clinical predictor(s) and NfL, it yielded no additional prognostic value. The prognostic utility of urinary p75ECD and plasma miR-181ab are more nuanced, with p75ECD yielding some sample size saving when combined with clinical predictor(s) and NfL (recognising that this conclusion is based on incomplete baseline data for p75ECD in this sample). Serum uric acid, albumin, creatinine, and CRP have no value as prognostic biomarkers irrespective of the outcome used. Similarly, baseline cognitive and behavioural impairment, based on the ECAS, does not add prognostic value.

While the greater prognostic value of blood NfL (than pNfH) may reflect a more critical role for the NfL isoform in maintaining neuroaxonal structure and function under pathological conditions, this may also reflect the better analytic performance of the blood NfL immunoassay. pNfH assays in blood are still hampered by a matrix effect and lack of appropriate binding reagents.35,36 Analytic considerations may also be relevant to the performance of urinary p75ECD, which has not yet achieved the same degree of analytic validation as NfL assays.37

The design of this study has both strengths and weaknesses. As an observational study rather than a clinical trial, a limitation is that the intervals between study visits were wide (and variable), requiring us to window study visits around defined time points for the repeated-measures analyses (see eTable 8). It is for this reason that we used observed times in a random slopes analyses to estimate sample size savings from incorporation of various potential prognostic biomarkers, despite the FDA's preference for a repeated-measures approach for clinical trials where study visit windows are typically more rigidly controlled. Of note, many ALS clinical trials have historically used this approach.38, 39, 40 Moreover, the estimates themselves depend on the duration of follow-up available at the time of analysis and would likely differ over shorter or longer intervals. In addition, due to premature study closure (for administrative reasons between funding cycles) and some attrition, follow up data at 3-, 6-, and 12-month were available for only 85%, 80% and 52% of participants, respectively—resulting in less precise estimates of ALSFRS-R values beyond 6 months. Vital status after a participant's last visit was ascertained based on clinic notes at some sites, with potentially more complete data collection on deaths; this leads to downward bias in estimates of absolute survival percentages but is unlikely to bias estimates of prognostic value. Strengths of this study include the a priori selection of a trial-like population, the rigorous attention to the quality of phenotypic data, and the multimodal analysis of putative prognostic biomarkers. Of note, our claims of prognostic utility do not imply any assumption of a causal relationship between a given prognostic and progression rate or survival.

We also acknowledge the limitations of the ALSFRS-R as an outcome measure in clinical trials, notably the fact that it is not uni-dimensional (meaning that items on the scale measure domains other than functional status)41; that a one-point change can represent a variable amount of functional change depending on the question and the item,42 providing a rationale for reporting the domain specific sub-scores of the ALSFRS-R43; and that the decline in ALSFRS-R is not linear across the entire course of disease.44 Notwithstanding these considerations, the ALSFRS-R is typically linear during the follow-up period encompassed by clinical trials,45 and remains the principal functional outcome measure used in ALS clinical trials.46

While the longitudinal trajectory of a subset of the biomarkers was not the major focus of this investigation, we have observed subtle increases in NfL and pNfH over time (in contrast to the conventional wisdom that these are largely stable8,47, 48, 49, 50). Also noteworthy is the marked increase and relatively consistent trajectory of urinary p75ECD (compared to NfL and pNfH), suggesting that urinary p75ECD might have value as a response or monitoring biomarker.

It should be acknowledged that our evaluation of changes in biomarkers over time—and of the prognostic value of these biomarkers—has been conducted at a population (or group) level. While statistically robust, conclusions from a population cannot necessarily be extrapolated to individual patients. NfL and other biomarkers considered in our analyses, therefore, remain largely research tools, with more limited (and speculative) value in the clinic setting when applied to individuals.

While confirmatory studies with larger sample sizes would add confidence to our conclusions, the results of this study are nevertheless immediately relevant to all ongoing and future ALS trials, even in the absence of formal qualification through regulatory agencies such as the FDA.51 Our findings are especially relevant to trials with 6-month treatment duration, the period for which we have more complete data. First, baseline NfL should be incorporated into the analysis plan for all clinical trials as a prognostic biomarker, whether functional decline or survival is used as the primary outcome. Second, how one incorporates baseline NfL into trial design—either as an eligibility criterion or as a stratification factor—depends on the purpose. For example, if the goal is to enrich the trial population for either faster or slower progressing patients, or to stratify randomisation based on anticipated rate of disease progression, then NfL levels above or below a defined threshold might be used. Our data suggest serum NfL thresholds of <40 pg/mL for slower progressors and >100 pg/mL for faster progressors. Between 40 and 100 pg/mL, given the steep relationship between NfL increase and faster future rate of ALSFRS-R decline, multiple NfL strata may be required for randomisation (as permitted by study sample size), in order to adequately control for heterogeneity of predicted disease progression rate (Importantly, the same threshold may not hold for predicting future survival.) Third, in a hypothetical clinical trial with ALSFRS-R slope as the outcome, except for urinary p75ECD, other putative prognostic biomarkers yield very little in the way of sample size saving beyond those conferred by the combination of established clinical predictor(s) and NfL. While incorporation of plasma miR-181ab in such a model does not improve prediction of future rates of ALSFRS-R decline or yield additional sample size savings, it may have some value in predicting survival.

This study exemplifies the critical importance of a multivariate approach to evaluating new prognostic markers and highlights the necessity for novel markers to demonstrate value added to existing predictors. Moreover, the implication of our finding that clinical predictors (encapsulated, for example, by the ENCALS score) and blood-based measurement of NfL are strong predictors of disease progression, is that both should be incorporated into all ongoing and future Phase 2 and Phase 3 ALS trials. Moreover, the dual use of NfL as a prognostic and response biomarker will aid interpretation of Phase 2 trial results and facilitate go/no-go decisions about advancing experimental agents to Phase 3. Collectively, these modifications to ALS trial design and analysis should accelerate the pace of ALS therapy development.

Contributors

MB: Study concept/design, study oversight, major role in acquisition of data, analysis/interpretation of data, access to and verification of underlying data, and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

EAM: Analysis/interpretation of data, access to and verification of underlying data, and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

AM: Study concept/design, major role in acquisition of data, and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

MLR: Study concept/design, major role in acquisition of data, and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

EH: Major role in acquisition of data and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

VL: Major role in acquisition of data.

DR: Major role in acquisition of data.

IM: Major role in acquisition of data and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

YC: Major role in acquisition of data.

VG: Major role in acquisition of data.

JS: Major role in acquisition of data.

JH: Major role in acquisition of data.

RR: Major role in acquisition of data and editing the manuscript for content.

CAM: Major role in generation of summary cognitive/behavioural data.

LP: Study concept/design and editing the manuscript for content.

CM: Major role in acquisition of data and editing the manuscript for content.

JW: Study concept/design, study oversight, major role in acquisition of data, analysis/interpretation of data, access to and verification of underlying data, and drafting/revising the manuscript for content.

All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

CReATe Consortium PGB Investigators contributed to data collection.

Data sharing statement

Following publication, de-identified participant data and a data dictionary defining each field in the dataset, will be made available following request to the corresponding authors and upon execution of a data access agreement. Additional study related documents are not available.

Declaration of interests

MB reports grants from the NIH (U01NS107027, U54NS092091) and the ALS Association (16-TACL-242) in support of this work. He is also an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees for the ALS Association. He has served as a consultant to Alector, Alexion, Annexon, Arrowhead, Biogen, Cartesian, Denali, Eli Lilly, Horizon, Immunovant, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and UniQure.

EAM reports grants from the NIH (U01NS107027, U54NS092091). He also serves as a consultant to Annexon, Biogen, Bial Biotech, Cortexyme, Chase Therapeutics, Enterin, nQ Medical, Partner Therapeutics, Stoparkinson Healthcare, and UCB. He has served on DSMBs for NeuroSense Therapeutics, Novartis, and Sanofi.

AM reports grants from the NIH (U01NS107027). He has also provided consulting services to Roche, Pfizer, and Accure Therapeutics.

MLR reports support from grants from the NIH (U01NS107027, U54NS092091) and FightMND.

EH has nothing to declare.

VL has nothing to declare.

DR has nothing to declare.

SS has nothing to declare.

IM has nothing to declare.

YC has nothing to declare.

VG currently is an employee of Biohaven Pharmaceutical Inc.

JS receives research funding from the NIH < MDA, FSHD Society, Friends of FSH Research, and FSHD Canada. He also serves as a consultant or on scientific advisory boards for Avidity, Fulcrum, Dyne, Armatus, Epic Bio, Roche, Lupin, and Entrada.

JH has nothing to declare.

RR reports grants from the NIH (U54NS092091) in support of this work. She is also an unpaid member of the Medical Advisory Board of the Association for Frontotemporal Dementias (AFTD) and a paid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Kissick Family Foundation FTD Grant Program.

CAM reports funding from the ALS Association and the NIH (U54NS092091).

LP reports support from the Mayo Clinic Foundation and grants from the National Institute on Aging (5P30AG0062677, U19AG063911) the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U54NS123743, R35NS097273, P01NS084974) and Target ALS Foundation.

CM reports grants from the NIH (AG066597, AG076411, AG066152, AG072979, NS109260, NS092091), Department of Defense, and support from the Penn Institute on Aging, Decrane Family PPA Fund, and Newhouse Fund.2.

JW reports funding from the NIH (U01NS107027, U54NS092091) and the ALS Association (16-TACL-242) in support of this work.

The CReATe Consortium (U54NS092091) is part of the NIH Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN), an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR), NCATS. This Consortium is funded through a collaboration between NCATS and the NINDS. This work was also supported by a Clinical Trial Readiness grant (U01NS107027) from NINDS and by a grant from the ALS Association to support the CReATe Biorepository (grant ID 16-TACL-242).

Appendix A Supplementary data

Collab authors

eTables

Acknowledgements

The authors thank participants in the CReATe Consortium's Phenotype-Genotype-Biomarker (PGB1) study; research staff at each clinical site; and the CReATe Consortium project management and data management teams, genomics sub-core, and biorepository. The authors also thank members of the University of Miami Laboratory for Clinical and Biological Studies for assistance with clinical chemistry assays.

Appendix A Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105323.
==== Refs
References

1 Benatar M. Boylan K. Jeromin A. ALS biomarkers for therapy development: state of the field and future directions Muscle Nerve 53 2 2016 169 182 26574709
2 Witzel S. Frauhammer F. Steinacker P. Neurofilament light and heterogeneity of disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: development and validation of a prediction model to improve interventional trials Transl Neurodegener 10 1 2021 31 34433481
3 Westeneng H.J. Debray T.P.A. Visser A.E. Prognosis for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: development and validation of a personalised prediction model Lancet Neurol 17 5 2018 423 433 29598923
4 Benatar M. Zhang L. Wang L. Validation of serum neurofilaments as prognostic and potential pharmacodynamic biomarkers for ALS Neurology 95 1 2020 e59 e69 32385188
5 Miller T.M. Cudkowicz M.E. Genge A. Trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS N Engl J Med 387 12 2022 1099 1110 36129998
6 Benatar M. Wuu J. Turner M.R. Neurofilament light chain in drug development for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a critical appraisal Brain 146 7 2022 2711 2716
7 Huang F. Zhu Y. Hsiao-Nakamoto J. Longitudinal biomarkers in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Ann Clin Transl Neurol 7 7 2020 1103 1116 32515902
8 Thompson A.G. Gray E. Verber N. Multicentre appraisal of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis biofluid biomarkers shows primacy of blood neurofilament light chain Brain Commun 4 1 2022 fcac029
9 Boylan K.B. Glass J.D. Crook J.E. Phosphorylated neurofilament heavy subunit (pNF-H) in peripheral blood and CSF as a potential prognostic biomarker in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84 4 2012 467 472 23117489
10 Shepheard S. Wuu J. Cardoso M. Urinary p75 extracellular domain; A biomarker for prognosis, progression and pharmacodynamic effect in ALS Neurology 88 12 2017 1137 1143 28228570
11 Magen I. Yacovzada N.S. Yanowski E. Circulating miR-181 is a prognostic biomarker for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Nat Neurosci 24 11 2021 1534 1541 34711961
12 Keizman D. Ish-Shalom M. Berliner S. Low uric acid levels in serum of patients with ALS: further evidence for oxidative stress? J Neurol Sci 285 1–2 2009 95 99 19552925
13 Ikeda K. Hirayama T. Takazawa T. Kawabe K. Iwasaki Y. Relationships between disease progression and serum levels of lipid, urate, creatinine and ferritin in Japanese patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a cross-sectional study Intern Med 51 12 2012 1501 1508 22728481
14 Paganoni S. Zhang M. Quiroz Zarate A. Uric acid levels predict survival in men with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis J Neurol 259 9 2012 1923 1928 22323210
15 Zheng Z. Guo X. Wei Q. Serum uric acid level is associated with the prevalence but not with survival of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a Chinese population Metab Brain Dis 29 3 2014 771 775 24577631
16 Chio A. Calvo A. Bovio G. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis outcome measures and the role of albumin and creatinine: a population-based study JAMA Neurol 71 9 2014 1134 1142 25048026
17 Mandrioli J. Rosi E. Fini N. Changes in routine laboratory tests and survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Neurol Sci 38 12 2017 2177 2182 28980128
18 O'Reilly E.J. Liu D. Johns D.R. Serum urate at trial entry and ALS progression in EMPOWER Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 18 1-2 2017 120 125 27677562
19 Paganoni S. Nicholson K. Chan J. Urate levels predict survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: analysis of the expanded Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS clinical trials database Muscle Nerve 57 3 2018 430 434 28857199
20 Kuffner R. Zach N. Norel R. Crowdsourced analysis of clinical trial data to predict amyotrophic lateral sclerosis progression Nat Biotechnol 33 1 2015 51 57 25362243
21 Paillisse C. Lacomblez L. Dib M. Bensimon G. Garcia-Acosta S. Meininger V. Prognostic factors for survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients treated with riluzole Amyotroph Lateral Scler 6 1 2005 37 44
22 Lunetta C. Lizio A. Maestri E. Serum C-reactive protein as a prognostic biomarker in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis JAMA Neurol 74 6 2017 660 667 28384752
23 Nagel G. Peter R.S. Rosenbohm A. Adipokines, C-reactive protein and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - results from a population- based ALS registry in Germany Sci Rep 7 1 2017 4374 28663573
24 Cedarbaum J.M. Stambler N. Malta E. The ALSFRS-R: a revised ALS functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of respiratory function. BDNF ALS study group (Phase III) J Neurol Sci 169 1–2 1999 13 21 10540002
25 Kimura F. Fujimura C. Ishida S. Progression rate of ALSFRS-R at time of diagnosis predicts survival time in ALS Neurology 66 2 2006 265 267 16434671
26 McMillan C.T. Wuu J. Rascovsky K. Defining cognitive impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: an evaluation of empirical approaches Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 23 7-8 2022 517 526 35253557
27 Rogers M.L. Atmosukarto I. Berhanu D.A. Matusica D. Macardle P. Rush R.A. Functional monoclonal antibodies to p75 neurotrophin receptor raised in knockout mice J Neurosci Methods 158 1 2006 109 120 16828166
28 Thompson S.J. Schatteman G.C. Gown A.M. Bothwell M. A monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor receptor. Immunohistochemical analysis of normal and neoplastic human tissue Am J Clin Pathol 92 4 1989 415 423 2552791
29 Shepheard S.R. Karnaros V. Benyamin B. Urinary neopterin: a novel biomarker of disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Eur J Neurol 29 4 2022 990 999 34967083
30 Mikheev M.I. Lowry L.K. WHO global project on biological monitoring of chemical exposure at the workplace Int Arch Occup Environ Health 68 6 1996 387 388 8891772
31 DeJesus-Hernandez M. Mackenzie I.R. Boeve B.F. Expanded GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat in noncoding region of C9ORF72 causes chromosome 9p-linked FTD and ALS Neuron 72 2 2011 245 256 21944778
32 Strong M.J. Abrahams S. Goldstein L.H. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - frontotemporal spectrum disorder (ALS-FTSD): revised diagnostic criteria Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 18 3-4 2017 153 174 28054827
33 McHutchison C.A. Wuu J. McMillan C.T. Temporal course of cognitive and behavioural changes in motor neuron diseases J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 95 4 2023 316 324
34 Greenland S. Dose-response and trend analysis in epidemiology: alternatives to categorical analysis Epidemiology 6 4 1995 356 365 7548341
35 Halbgebauer S. Steinacker P. Verde F. Comparison of CSF and serum neurofilament light and heavy chain as differential diagnostic biomarkers for ALS J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 93 1 2022 68 74 34417339
36 Sturmey E. Malaspina A. Blood biomarkers in ALS: challenges, applications and novel frontiers Acta Neurol Scand 146 4 2022 375 388 36156207
37 Rogers M.L. Schultz D.W. Karnaros V. Shepheard S.R. Urinary biomarkers for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: candidates, opportunities and considerations Brain Commun 5 6 2023 fcad287
38 Cudkowicz M.E. Titus S. Kearney M. Safety and efficacy of ceftriaxone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multi-stage, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Lancet Neurol 13 11 2014 1083 1091 25297012
39 Vucic S. Menon P. Huynh W. Efficacy and safety of CNM-Au8 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (RESCUE-ALS study): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and open label extension eClinicalMedicine 60 2023 102036
40 Schoenfeld D.A. Finkelstein D.M. Macklin E. Design and analysis of a clinical trial using previous trials as historical control Clin Trials 16 5 2019 531 538 31256630
41 van Eijk R.P.A. de Jongh A.D. Nikolakopoulos S. An old friend who has overstayed their welcome: the ALSFRS-R total score as primary endpoint for ALS clinical trials Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 22 3–4 2021 300 307 33527843
42 Fournier C.N. Considerations for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trial design Neurotherapeutics 19 4 2022 1180 1192 35819713
43 Rooney J. Burke T. Vajda A. Heverin M. Hardiman O. What does the ALSFRS-R really measure? A longitudinal and survival analysis of functional dimension subscores in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 88 5 2017 381 385 27888187
44 Gordon P.H. Cheng B. Salachas F. Progression in ALS is not linear but is curvilinear J Neurol 257 10 2010 1713 1717 20532545
45 Proudfoot M. Jones A. Talbot K. Al-Chalabi A. Turner M.R. The ALSFRS as an outcome measure in therapeutic trials and its relationship to symptom onset Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 17 5–6 2016 414 425 26864085
46 Genge A. Cedarbaum J.M. Shefner J. The ALSFRS-R Summit: a global call to action on the use of the ALSFRS-R in ALS clinical trials Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 25 3-4 2024 382 387 38396337
47 Lu C.H. Macdonald-Wallis C. Gray E. Neurofilament light chain: a prognostic biomarker in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Neurology 84 22 2015 2247 2257 25934855
48 Steinacker P. Huss A. Mayer B. Diagnostic and prognostic significance of neurofilament light chain NF-L, but not progranulin and S100B, in the course of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: data from the German MND-net Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 18 1-2 2017 112 119 27819158
49 Gille B. De Schaepdryver M. Goossens J. Serum neurofilament light chain levels as a marker of upper motor neuron degeneration in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 45 3 2019 291 304 29908069
50 Verde F. Steinacker P. Weishaupt J.H. Neurofilament light chain in serum for the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 90 2 2019 157 164 30309882
51 Benatar M. Ostrow L.W. Lewcock J.W. Biomarker qualification for neurofilament light chain in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: theory and practice Ann Neurol 95 2 2024 211 216 38110839
