Multiple sclerosis • blood • cerebrospinal fluid

Blood and CSF Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis: Diagnosis, Disease Activity and Progression

Cerebrospinal fluid testing has been used for many years in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Today, classic oligoclonal bands are complemented by quantitative markers of intrathecal immune activity, while highly sensitive laboratory methods can measure selected nervous-system proteins not only in CSF but also in blood.

Different biomarkers answer different clinical questions. Oligoclonal bands and kappa free light chains are used primarily for diagnosis. Neurofilament light chain helps assess neuroaxonal injury, whereas glial fibrillary acidic protein is being actively studied as a potential marker of gradual progression.

There is currently no blood test that independently confirms multiple sclerosis or automatically determines whether treatment should be changed. Blood and CSF biomarkers complement clinical assessment and MRI; they do not replace them.
Two sources of information

Why some biomarkers are measured in CSF and others in blood

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)

CSF is in direct contact with the central nervous system, so it can reveal processes occurring within the CNS: intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, changes in cellular composition and selected signs of neuroinflammation.

Its main limitation is the need for lumbar puncture. For this reason, CSF is not suitable for frequent routine monitoring.

Blood

Blood sampling can be repeated easily, making blood biomarkers especially attractive for long-term monitoring and assessment of disease dynamics.

Modern high-sensitivity assays can measure very low concentrations of proteins that originate in the nervous system and enter the circulation.

The fact that a protein can be measured in blood does not mean that its meaning is identical in blood and CSF. For each biomarker, clinicians need to know which sample type has been best validated, how age and comorbidities affect the result, and which analytical method was used.
Laboratory biomarker map

Which biomarkers are most important today?

Biomarker Sample What it reflects Main role Use
Oligoclonal IgG bands (OCB) CSF and serum Intrathecal IgG synthesis Diagnosis Routine
Kappa free light chains (κ-FLC) CSF and serum Intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis Diagnosis Included in the 2024 McDonald criteria
IgG index CSF and serum Quantitative assessment of intrathecal IgG synthesis Additional diagnostic information Used clinically
Neurofilament light chain (NfL) Blood or CSF Neuroaxonal injury Activity assessment and monitoring The best-studied blood biomarker in MS
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) Blood or CSF Astroglial activation Research on progression Promising, not yet routine
CXCL13 Mainly CSF Intrathecal B-cell activity Research on inflammatory activity Mainly research
Chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1 / YKL-40) CSF and blood Glial and innate immune activation Research on chronic tissue injury Mainly research
MSDA test Serum Multi-protein disease activity profile Additional assessment of disease activity Specialized commercial test
Diagnosis

What CSF testing adds when multiple sclerosis is suspected

Lumbar puncture is not necessary in every patient with an obvious clinical and MRI picture, but it remains important when the diagnosis needs additional support or when other inflammatory, infectious or systemic disorders must be excluded.

Routine

Oligoclonal bands

Demonstrate local IgG synthesis within the central nervous system and have major diagnostic value in MS.

McDonald 2024

Kappa free light chains

A quantitative marker of the intrathecal immunoglobulin response that may be used, within the 2024 McDonald criteria, as an alternative to CSF-specific OCB in appropriate diagnostic settings.

Differential diagnosis

Cell count, protein and glucose

These basic CSF measures help determine whether the CSF profile is compatible with MS or whether findings point toward another disease.

Intrathecal immune response

Oligoclonal bands (OCB)

Oligoclonal IgG bands are detected by isoelectric focusing with simultaneous analysis of CSF and serum.

For MS diagnosis, bands that are present in CSF but absent from serum are particularly important. This pattern indicates immunoglobulin synthesis within the central nervous system.

What they are used for

Primarily to document an intrathecal immune response during diagnostic work-up.

What they do not show

OCB cannot tell whether new lesions have appeared, whether the disease is active today, or how well a DMT is working.

Should the test be repeated?

Once the diagnosis is firmly established, repeating OCB for routine monitoring is usually unnecessary.

The absence of oligoclonal bands does not exclude multiple sclerosis. However, if the clinical picture or MRI findings are atypical, a negative OCB result is an additional reason to reconsider alternative diagnoses carefully.
Quantitative assessment

Kappa free light chains (κ-FLC)

When immunoglobulins are produced, B cells and plasma cells also generate free light chains. With active intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, CSF kappa free light chain concentrations may increase.

κ-FLC index

Assessment of intrathecal synthesis requires more than the absolute CSF κ-FLC concentration. The CSF result is interpreted relative to serum κ-FLC and to blood–CSF barrier permeability.

A commonly used approach is the κ-FLC index, which combines the CSF-to-serum κ-FLC ratio with the albumin quotient.

Why the method is useful

  • provides a quantitative result;
  • can be automated;
  • has high reproducibility;
  • shows diagnostic accuracy comparable with OCB in studies.
A single published κ-FLC cut-off should not be applied automatically to every laboratory. Results depend on the analytical platform, calculation method and locally validated reference ranges.
Two approaches

Oligoclonal bands and κ-FLC: how do they differ?

Oligoclonal bandsKappa free light chains
Type of resultQualitative or semi-quantitativeQuantitative
Main methodIsoelectric focusingImmunochemical assay
AutomationLimitedHigher
Clinical experienceVery extensiveLess extensive, but rapidly growing
2024 McDonald criteriaYesYes
Routine activity monitoringNoNo
These are not necessarily competing methods. Both reflect the same broad process—intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis—but detect it in different ways. In diagnostically difficult cases, the full CSF profile may be more informative than either result alone.
Beyond OCB

Which other CSF findings matter?

Cell count

A mild lymphocytic pleocytosis can occur in MS. Marked pleocytosis or an unusual cellular profile should prompt consideration of another diagnosis.

Total protein

Markedly elevated protein is not typical of uncomplicated MS and should be interpreted in the context of alternative disorders.

Albumin quotient

Assesses blood–CSF barrier function and is required for calculation of some intrathecal indices.

IgG index

Provides a quantitative measure of intrathecal IgG synthesis. It has a long clinical history but does not replace modern assessment with OCB or κ-FLC.

Glucose

Markedly low CSF glucose is not typical of MS and may point toward infection, granulomatous disease or another process.

Additional tests

Microbiological, cytological, immunological and other studies may be added when needed for differential diagnosis.

Standard CSF examination is useful not only for supporting MS but also for identifying findings that are atypical for MS and should trigger reconsideration of the diagnosis.
Neuroaxonal injury

Neurofilament light chain (NfL)

Neurofilaments are structural proteins of neurons, particularly axons. When nerve fibers are injured, neurofilament light chain is released into the extracellular space, then into CSF and, in smaller amounts, into blood.

High-sensitivity assays now allow reasonably reliable measurement of serum NfL, making it one of the best-studied blood biomarkers in multiple sclerosis.

Relapses

NfL may rise after new inflammatory injury and a clinical relapse.

MRI activity

Higher NfL values are associated with a greater likelihood of new T2 lesions and gadolinium-enhancing lesions.

Treatment response

When inflammatory activity is effectively suppressed, elevated NfL often falls; serial measurements may therefore complement MRI.

NfL reflects axonal injury but does not identify its cause. It may be elevated not only in MS, but also after stroke, traumatic brain injury, in neurodegenerative disease and in other conditions.
Clinical interpretation

Why a single NfL value is not enough

An absolute NfL concentration cannot be interpreted using one universal threshold. The result depends on age, the patient’s condition, analytical method and several accompanying factors.

Age

NfL concentrations increase with age, so the same result may mean something different in a young and an older patient.

Kidney function

Reduced renal function can be associated with higher serum NfL and should be considered during interpretation.

Body size

Body mass index and distribution volume may influence blood NfL concentrations.

Other disorders

Any significant injury to the nervous system may affect the result.

Assay method

Results obtained on different analytical platforms are not always directly comparable.

Longitudinal change

Serial measurements performed with the same method are often more informative than a single isolated result.

Modern approaches use age-adjusted reference values, percentiles or Z-scores. However, there is still no universal NfL value above which a DMT should automatically be changed.
Astroglial activation

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)

GFAP is a structural protein of astrocytes. Whereas NfL primarily reflects neuroaxonal injury, GFAP is associated with the astrocytic response to injury and chronic changes within the central nervous system.

For this reason, GFAP is being studied particularly actively in progressive forms of MS and in disability accumulation that occurs independently of relapses.

Progressive MS

In group-level studies, higher GFAP concentrations have been associated with progressive disease and subsequent worsening.

PIRA

GFAP is being investigated as a possible biomarker of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA).

Serial measurements

Automated assays and age-specific reference databases may make GFAP more useful in future clinical practice.

What studies in progressive MS have shown

In a large international analysis of people with primary and secondary progressive MS, higher serum GFAP was associated with subsequent confirmed disability worsening.

The association was particularly evident in patients with secondary progressive MS.

GFAP is not yet a test that diagnoses SPMS, confirms PIRA or independently determines a treatment change. It remains an additional and evolving biomarker of progression.
Different biological processes

NfL and GFAP complement each other

NfLGFAP
Main cellular sourceNeurons and axonsAstrocytes
What it reflectsNeuroaxonal injuryAstroglial activation
Acute inflammatory injuryWell studiedLess specific association
New MRI lesionsWell-established associationWeaker association
ProgressionHas prognostic valueBeing studied particularly actively
Readiness for routine practiceHigherLower
In the future, combined assessment of NfL and GFAP may be more informative than either marker alone because they reflect different components of CNS injury.
B-cell activity

CXCL13 (C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 13)

CXCL13 is a signaling molecule involved in B-cell recruitment and organization of the humoral immune response.

In MS, CSF CXCL13 is of particular research interest because it may reflect the intensity of local B-cell activity within the central nervous system.

Inflammatory activity

Higher levels have been associated in several studies with more pronounced inflammatory activity.

Early MS

CXCL13 is being studied as a potential prognostic marker after a first demyelinating event and in early disease.

B-cell-directed therapy

The marker is of interest for studying changes in humoral immune activity during treatment, but it is not a standard criterion for selecting therapy.

CXCL13 is not a specific test for multiple sclerosis. It may also be elevated in other inflammatory and infectious CNS disorders and is therefore not used alone to establish the diagnosis.
Glial and innate immune activation

Chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1 / YKL-40)

CHI3L1 is produced by several cell types, including astrocytes, microglia and cells of the monocyte–macrophage lineage.

In multiple sclerosis it is studied as a possible marker of chronic glial and innate immune activation.

Progression

In several studies, higher CHI3L1 levels have been associated with greater disability and progressive disease.

Chronic tissue injury

Possible associations with chronic active lesions and other manifestations of long-standing inflammatory injury are being investigated.

Limitations

The protein is produced outside the CNS as well, and blood and CSF results do not always provide equivalent information.

CHI3L1 is an interesting research biomarker, but there is currently no basis for including it in routine follow-up testing for every patient with MS.
Multi-protein assessment

MSDA: combining several protein signals

The Multiple Sclerosis Disease Activity (MSDA) test is based not on a single biomarker, but on simultaneous measurement of 18 serum proteins processed by a machine-learning algorithm.

What the test may add

Additional quantitative information about disease activity that can be interpreted together with clinical findings and MRI.

What the test does not do

MSDA does not establish an MS diagnosis, does not replace MRI and is not a stand-alone criterion for changing DMT.

Treatment monitoring

Can blood biomarkers show whether treatment is working?

Blood biomarkers may provide additional information about treatment response, but they should not be interpreted separately from the clinical course and MRI.

1

Clinical course

Relapses, new symptoms, neurological examination and functional changes are assessed.

2

MRI

New or enlarging lesions and, when needed, contrast activity are assessed.

3

NfL

Serial values may add information about new neuroaxonal injury.

4

Other biomarkers

GFAP, MSDA and emerging markers may add information, but their current clinical use is more limited.

Elevated NfL with stable MRI should neither be ignored nor automatically interpreted as proof that a DMT is failing. Timing of the previous relapse, NfL trend, MRI quality, age, comorbidities and other possible causes of nervous-system injury all need to be considered.
Practical question

Should lumbar puncture be repeated after the diagnosis is established?

In most cases, no. Once MS is firmly established, repeated testing of OCB, κ-FLC or routine CSF measures is not a standard way to monitor treatment effectiveness.

Usually not needed

  • to check whether OCB are still present;
  • for routine DMT effectiveness monitoring;
  • for routine monitoring of MRI activity;
  • when the diagnosis is stable and the disease course is typical.

May be needed

  • if the original diagnosis is uncertain;
  • when atypical symptoms appear;
  • when CNS infection is suspected;
  • when another inflammatory or neoplastic disorder is suspected;
  • in selected complex diagnostic situations.
This is one reason blood biomarkers are particularly attractive for longitudinal laboratory monitoring: they can be measured repeatedly without an invasive procedure.
Putting the results together

Each biomarker should answer a specific clinical question

Diagnosis

Oligoclonal bands, κ-FLC, routine CSF findings and MRI.

Acute injury

New lesions, relapses and neurofilament light chain.

Progression

Clinical course, GFAP, atrophy, PRL, SEL and other evolving markers.

Multi-protein assessment

MSDA and other proteomic approaches attempt to integrate several biological signals into one profile.

The purpose of modern monitoring is not to order the maximum number of tests, but to choose the investigations that genuinely help answer the clinical question.
Clinical interpretation

When is it especially important to interpret results together?

The MS diagnosis is uncertain

MRI, oligoclonal bands, κ-FLC, routine CSF findings and possible alternative diagnoses should be considered together.

NfL is high

Age, longitudinal trend, assay method, timing of previous relapses, MRI findings and comorbidities all matter.

Function worsens without relapses

PIRA, spinal cord involvement, functional change and other causes of deterioration should be assessed. GFAP may add information but does not replace clinical evaluation.

A treatment switch is being considered

Laboratory biomarkers may complement clinical and MRI findings, but the decision should not depend on one test alone.

Frequently asked questions

Blood and CSF biomarkers in multiple sclerosis

Can multiple sclerosis be diagnosed with a blood test?
No. There is currently no blood test that independently confirms MS. Diagnosis is based on the clinical picture, MRI and, when needed, CSF testing. NfL, GFAP and other blood biomarkers serve different purposes.
Which is more important for diagnosis: oligoclonal bands or κ-FLC?
Both reflect intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis. OCB have decades of clinical experience, while κ-FLC provide a quantitative and highly automatable result. Under the 2024 McDonald criteria, κ-FLC may be used as an alternative to CSF-specific OCB in appropriate diagnostic situations.
If oligoclonal bands are absent, does that mean it is not MS?
No. The absence of OCB does not exclude multiple sclerosis. However, when the clinical picture or MRI findings are atypical, a negative OCB result is an additional reason to reconsider the differential diagnosis carefully.
Should oligoclonal bands be repeated after treatment starts?
Usually not. OCB are used primarily for diagnosis and are not a standard marker of DMT effectiveness.
Does high NfL mean that a relapse is occurring?
Not necessarily. NfL reflects neuroaxonal injury, which may be associated with a relapse or new MRI activity, but can also increase with other forms of nervous-system injury.
Should a DMT be changed because of a high NfL result alone?
Usually not. Elevated NfL may prompt a closer review of the clinical course, MRI and other factors, but it is not a universal stand-alone criterion for changing therapy.
Is GFAP better than NfL in progressive MS?
They are different biomarkers. NfL primarily reflects neuroaxonal injury, while GFAP reflects astroglial activation. GFAP is particularly interesting in research on PIRA and progressive MS, but it is not yet a stand-alone clinical test of progression.
Should every patient with MS have CXCL13 and CHI3L1 measured?
No. Both are scientifically interesting biomarkers, but neither is part of standard routine assessment for every person with multiple sclerosis.
Should lumbar puncture be repeated several years after the diagnosis?
Usually not when MS is firmly established. Repeat CSF testing may be useful if a new diagnostic question arises, an atypical clinical situation develops or another disease needs to be excluded.
This page is available in other languages:
Author

Dr. Lidiia Prakhova

Neurologist, Doctor of Medical Sciences. Main clinical interests include multiple sclerosis and other neuroimmunological disorders, modern diagnostics, biomarkers, and treatment selection and switching.

This page is intended for educational purposes and does not replace an individual medical consultation. Laboratory results should be interpreted together with the clinical picture, neurological examination and MRI findings.

Book a consultation

Key references

  1. Montalban X, Lebrun-Frénay C, Oh J, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2024 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2025;24(10):850–865. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(25)00270-4.
  2. Deisenhammer F, Hegen H, Arrambide G, et al. Positive cerebrospinal fluid in the 2024 McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis. EBioMedicine. 2025;120:105905. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105905.
  3. Hegen H, Arrambide G, Gnanapavan S, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid kappa free light chains for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A consensus statement. Mult Scler. 2023;29(2):182–195. doi:10.1177/13524585221134217.
  4. Hegen H, Walde J, Berek K, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid kappa free light chains for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2023;29(2):169–181. doi:10.1177/13524585221134213.
  5. Yaldizli Ö, Benkert P, Achtnichts L, et al. Personalized treatment decision algorithms for the clinical application of serum neurofilament light chain in multiple sclerosis: A modified Delphi Study. Mult Scler. 2025;31(8):932–943. doi:10.1177/13524585251335466.
  6. Abdelhak A, Bachhuber F, Ning K, et al. Blood biomarkers for predicting disability worsening in progressive multiple sclerosis: a multinational, individual participant-level analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2025;96(11):1046–1052. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2025-335831.
  7. Di Sabatino E, Ferraro D, Gaetani L, et al. CSF biomarkers of B-cell activation in multiple sclerosis: a clinical perspective. J Neurol. 2025.
  8. Qureshi F, Hu W, Loh L, et al. Analytical validation of a multi-protein, serum-based assay for disease activity assessments in multiple sclerosis. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2023;17(3):e2200018. doi:10.1002/prca.202200018.
  9. Chitnis T, Foley J, Ionete C, et al. Clinical validation of a multi-protein, serum-based assay for disease activity assessments in multiple sclerosis. Clin Immunol. 2023;253:109688. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2023.109688.
Made on
Tilda