Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Using biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis
  1. Daniel Castle1,2,
  2. Ray Wynford-Thomas1,2,
  3. Sam Loveless1,2,
  4. Emily Bentley2,
  5. Owain W Howell3,
  6. Emma C Tallantyre1,2
  1. 1 Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
  2. 2 Helen Durham Centre for Neuroinflammation, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  3. 3 Institute of Life Science (ILS), Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to DrEmma CTallantyre, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK; tallantyreec{at}


Long-term outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS) are highly varied and treatment with disease-modifying therapies carries significant risks. Finding tissue biomarkers that can predict clinical outcomes would be valuable in individualising treatment decisions for people with MS. Several candidate biomarkers—reflecting inflammation, neurodegeneration and glial pathophysiology—show promise for predicting outcomes. However, many candidates still require validation in cohorts with long-term follow-up and evaluation for their independent contribution in predicting outcome when models are adjusted for known demographic, clinical and radiological predictors. Given the complexity of MS pathophysiology, heterogeneous panels comprising a combination of biomarkers that encompass the various aspects of neurodegenerative, glial and immune pathology seen in MS, may enhance future predictions of outcome.

  • multiple sclerosis (ms)
  • biomarkers
  • outcome
  • neurofilament
  • pathophysiology

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • DC and RW-T contributed equally.

  • Contributors DC, RW-T, SL, EB, OWH and ECT all contributed to the drafting of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned. Externally peer reviewed by Martin Duddy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, and Alasdair Coles, Cambridge, UK.

Linked Articles

  • Editors’ commentary
    Phil E M Smith Geraint N Fuller

Other content recommended for you