Vasoactive intestinal Peptide as a diagnostic or prognostic biomarker in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review.
Current evidence on vasoactive intestinal peptide as a biomarker in multiple sclerosis is limited and inconsistent, necessitating larger and more standardized studies to clarify its potential value.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the vip (vasoactive intestinal polypeptide) corpusSummary and findings
This systematic review evaluated the expression of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) as a potential biomarker in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Seven studies published between 1984 and 2024 were included, with findings indicating reduced VIP concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid or blood compared to healthy donors, though statistical significance was inconsistent. The review highlights the need for larger studies to clarify VIP's biomarker value in MS.
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>Biomarkers are crucial in multiple sclerosis (MS) to improve diagnosis, prognosis, and disease monitoring in this heterogeneous immune-mediated disorder. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) is an immunomodulatory and neuroprotective neuropeptide with established effects in preclinical models, but its biomarker utility remains uncertain. This review evaluated VIP expression as an MS biomarker.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included original clinical research measuring VIP levels, genetic variants, or expression of VIP and its receptors in MS patients. Reviews, non-clinical, animal or in vitro studies, and non-English publications were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by several reviewers. Due to methodological heterogeneity, qualitative synthesis was conducted, and risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.<h4>Results</h4>Seven studies published between 1984 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Most studies reported reduced VIP concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid or blood compared with healthy donors, although statistical significance was inconsistent and methodological differences limited direct comparisons. One recent study suggested moderate diagnostic performance of serum VIP and subtype-specific differences. Genetic studies showed no association between VIP variants and MS susceptibility. Tissue analyses revealed heterogeneous, subtype-dependent alterations in VIP and its receptors expression.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Clinical evidence supporting VIP as a biomarker in MS remains limited since most available evidence is cross-sectional and lacks prognostic utility. Substantial heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and moderate-to-high bias preclude firm conclusions. Larger studies, standardized quantification methods, and longitudinal designs are needed to clarify its biomarker value.
Background
The paper addresses the potential of Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide (VIP) as a biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), a condition characterized by neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration. Prior studies have suggested that neuropeptides like VIP may play a role in the pathophysiology of MS, but their diagnostic or prognostic utility remains unclear. This systematic review aims to consolidate existing evidence to determine the relevance of VIP in MS.
Methods
The review systematically evaluates studies that investigated VIP levels in patients with multiple sclerosis. The specific inclusion criteria, study designs, and the number of studies reviewed are not detailed in the abstract. The review likely includes a range of observational and interventional studies assessing VIP levels in relation to MS outcomes.
Results
Not reported in abstract.
Interpretation
Without specific results presented in the abstract, it is challenging to compare the findings to prior literature or to assess the clinical significance of VIP as a biomarker for MS. The lack of detailed results limits the ability to draw firm conclusions about the utility of VIP in clinical practice. Confounding factors such as study design variability and sample size may affect the reliability of the findings.
Key findings
- Not reported in abstract.
Limitations
- Not reported in abstract.
- No numeric findings provided.
- Lack of detailed methodology in the abstract.