ABSTRACT
Objective To determine which nerve excitability outcome measures are potential biomarkers for ALS via systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods Potential studies were identified from the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 2020. Only studies performed in human participants and assessing median motor axons were included. Forest Plot analyses using a random-effects model to determine pooled effect (Z-score), heterogeneity (I2) and Cohen’s d were used to identify potential biomarkers.
Results From 2866 studies, 26 (patients=942, controls=719) were used in the systematic review and 23 in the meta-analysis. Seven axonal excitability indices met the three criteria for: significant Z-score, heterogeneity I2<40% and Cohen’s d >0.2 (in descending rank order): TEd 90-100 ms, strength-duration time constant (SDTC), superexcitability, TEd 40-60 ms, resting I/V slope, 50% depolarizing, and subexcitability. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients with ‘early’ ALS indicated that four indices are potential early biomarkers of ALS (Z ranging from 2.99 to 2.16, in descending rank order): TEd 10-20 ms, TEd 90-100 ms, superexcitability, and SDTC.
Conclusion Seven excitability indices differentiate ALS patients from healthy controls, four of which may serve as early biomarkers for ALS. The candidate biomarkers may be used to monitor disease progression, predict survivability, and measure treatment response in clinical trials. High quality diagnostic test accuracy studies are warranted to firmly establish the utility of these indices in individuals suspected of an ALS diagnosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2017-05624). This funding agency had no further role in any aspect of the study or the writing of this report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The source data were extracted from published studies and are available in a Figshare repository.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data and supplementary material are available in a Figshare repository.