Skip to main content

Table 2 Association of baseline sGFAP and sNfL with clinical disability parameters in AQP4-IgG+ and MOG-IgG+ patients

From: Serum GFAP and NfL as disease severity and prognostic biomarkers in patients with aquaporin-4 antibody-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

  Patient group (n) sGFAP sNfL
ηρ2 for interaction, p Standardized effect size β (95% CI) p ηρ2 for interaction, p Standardized effect size β (95% CI) p
EDSSa AQP4-IgG+ (33) 0.10, p = 0.04 1.30 1.78 (0.52–3.04) 0.007 0.06, p = 0.11 1.09 1.58 (− 0.58–3.75) 0.15
MOG-IgG+ (16) − 0.48 − 0.52 (− 2.26–1.30) 0.59 − 0.29 − 0.43 (− 2.55–1.70) 0.69
MSFCa AQP4-IgG+ (25) 0.14, p = 0.03 − 1.28 − 0.73 (− 1.30 to − 0.16) 0.01 0.05, p = 0.20 − 1.75 − 1.05 (− 2.13−0.03) 0.06
MOG-IgG+ (12) 0.76 0.43 (− 0.46–1.32) 0.33 − 0.37 − 0.22 (− 1.26–0.82) 0.67
9-HPTa AQP4-IgG+ (32) 0.11, p = 0.04 − 1.03 − 0.007 (− 0.013 to − 0.001) 0.03 < 0.01, p = 0.70 − 0.82 − 0.006 (− 0.017–0.005) 0.28
MOG-IgG+ (14) 0.65 0.004 (− 0.004–0.013) 0.32 − 0.47 − 0.003 (− 0.015–0.008) 0.56
PASATa AQP4-IgG+ (27) 0.05, p = 0.19 − 1.00 − 12.7 (− 25.1 to − 0.3) 0.045 0.13, p = 0.03 − 1.86 − 23.0 (− 43.7 to − 2.4) 0.03
MOG-IgG+ (13) 0.21 2.7 (− 17.0–22.4) 0.78 0.44 5.5 (− 15.9–26.9) 0.61
T25-FWb AQP4-IgG+ (30) 0.01, p = 0.61 0.19 0.027 (− 0.105–0.158) 0.69 0.01, p = 0.54 0.31 0.043 (− 0.179–0.265) 0.70
MOG-IgG+ (14) − 0.21 − 0.029 (− 0.212–0.154) 0.75 0.89 0.122 (− 0.099–0.343) 0.27
  1. aLinear model using log-transformed sGFAP or sNfL values, including age as well as the log-transformed interval since the last attack as covariates. Furthermore, an interaction term of baseline sGFAP or sNFL (log-transformed) and group was included to assess the statistical significance of inter group differences
  2. bLinear model using log-transformed sGFAP or sNfL and log-transformed T25-FW values, including age as well as the log-transformed interval since the last attack as covariates. Furthermore, an interaction term of baseline sGFAP or sNFL (log-transformed) and group was included to assess the statistical significance of inter group differences
  3. Note that a higher EDSS score indicates a worse functional status, whereas a higher MSFC score indicates a better functional status. The EDSS [23] is the most common score to rate global neurological dysfunction secondary to MS and NMOSD. The MSFC [24] is a more complex, multidimensional scoring system for neurological impairment in MS and NMOSD, which consists of three components. These components, which may each be used individually as well, are the 9-HPT, PASAT, and T25-FW. The 9-HPT assesses upper extremity function and dexterity. PASAT, in rating the processing speed of auditory input and calculation ability, quantifies cognitive impairment. T25-FW addresses lower extremity function based on walking speed
  4. 9-HPT 9-hole peg test, AQP4-IgG aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G, β regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, ηρ2 partial eta-squared, EDSS expanded disability status scale, MOG-IgG myelin oligodendrocyte protein immunoglobulin G, MSFC multiple sclerosis functional composite, n number, NMOSD neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, PASAT paced auditory serial addition test, sGFAP serum glial fibrillary acidic protein, sNfL serum neurofilament light chain protein, T25-FW timed 25-foot walk