2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Discriminative value of glial fibrillar acidic protein (GFAP) as a diagnostic tool in acute stroke. Individual patient data meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Glial fibrillar acidic protein (GFAP) in serum has been evaluated as a promising biomarker to differentiate between intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We assessed its value as diagnostic and prognostic tool for ICH through a literature systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis.

          We performed a systematic search in PubMed database until November 2018 for publications that evaluated GFAP to differentiate AIS and ICH within 4.5 hours after symptoms onset. Thereafter, we invited authors of selected studies to participate in this work by providing IPD from their cohorts. We used standardized individual subject’s data to evaluate the association of GFAP concentrations with stroke subtype, demographics, stroke characteristics and factors related with GFAP measurement.

          From 4 selected studies, we collected data of 340 patients (236 AIS and 104 ICH). Standardized GFAP blood levels were significantly elevated in ICH compared with those with AIS (median and IQR: 0.84 (0.781–1.24), 0.79 (0.74–0.81); p<0.0001). In both stroke types, GFAP concentrations correlated with baseline stroke severity (r=0.27, p<0.0001; r=0.36, p<0.001; for AIS and ICH, respectively) but no correlation was found regarding time to sampling. Limited data precluded the evaluation of GFAP levels and functional outcome.

          These findings demonstrate substantially different levels of GFAP in the blood of patients with ICH compared with patients with AIS soon after the event, while no association was found with outcome. In summary, GFAP could be a valuable diagnostic tool to assist in medical decision-making and to optimize management of stroke in the acute setting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Assessment of Serum UCH-L1 and GFAP in Acute Stroke Patients

          A rapid and reliable diagnostic test to distinguish ischemic from hemorrhagic stroke in patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms is essential to optimize management and triage for thrombolytic therapy. The present study measured serum concentrations of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary astrocytic protein (GFAP) in acute stroke patients and healthy controls and investigated their relation to stroke severity and patient characteristics. We also assessed the diagnostic performance of these markers for the differentiation of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from ischemic stroke (IS). Both UCH-L1 and GFAP concentrations were significantly greater in ICH patients than in controls (p < 0.0001). However, exclusively GFAP differed in ICH compared with IS (p < 0.0001). GFAP yielded an AUC of 0.86 for differentiating between ICH and IS within 4.5hrs of symptom onset with a sensitivity of 61% and a specificity of 96% using a cut-off of 0.34ng/ml. Higher GFAP levels were associated with stroke severity and history of prior stroke. Our results demonstrate that blood UCH-L1 and GFAP are increased early after stroke and distinct biomarker-specific release profiles are associated with stroke characteristics and type. We also confirmed the potential of GFAP as a tool for early rule-in of ICH, while UCH-L1 was not clinically useful.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Importance of GFAP isoform‐specific analyses in astrocytoma

            Abstract Gliomas are a heterogenous group of malignant primary brain tumors that arise from glia cells or their progenitors and rely on accurate diagnosis for prognosis and treatment strategies. Although recent developments in the molecular biology of glioma have improved diagnosis, classical histological methods and biomarkers are still being used. The glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a classical marker of astrocytoma, both in clinical and experimental settings. GFAP is used to determine glial differentiation, which is associated with a less malignant tumor. However, since GFAP is not only expressed by mature astrocytes but also by radial glia during development and neural stem cells in the adult brain, we hypothesized that GFAP expression in astrocytoma might not be a direct indication of glial differentiation and a less malignant phenotype. Therefore, we here review all existing literature from 1972 up to 2018 on GFAP expression in astrocytoma patient material to revisit GFAP as a marker of lower grade, more differentiated astrocytoma. We conclude that GFAP is heterogeneously expressed in astrocytoma, which most likely masks a consistent correlation of GFAP expression to astrocytoma malignancy grade. The GFAP positive cell population contains cells with differences in morphology, function, and differentiation state showing that GFAP is not merely a marker of less malignant and more differentiated astrocytoma. We suggest that discriminating between the GFAP isoforms GFAPδ and GFAPα will improve the accuracy of assessing the differentiation state of astrocytoma in clinical and experimental settings and will benefit glioma classification.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein for Prehospital Diagnosis of Intracerebral Hemorrhage

              Background: Both, acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and hemorrhage stroke (intracerebral hemorrhage, ICH) require early attention but different treatment strategies. Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels were found to be elevated in ICH patients after they arrived in the hospital. Because treatment options differed, we sought to determine whether GFAP can be used to accurately differentiate between of AIS and ICH in the prehospital setting. Methods: We assessed acute stroke patients in the Stroke Emergency Mobile (STEMO). STEMO is a stroke ambulance staffed by a specialized team including a neurologist and equipped with a computed tomography scanner plus a point-of-care laboratory. The STEMO ambulance is integrated in the emergency medical system of Berlin, Germany. Following prehospital stroke diagnosis, blood was drawn and subsequently analysed using research assays from Roche diagnostics. The clinical accuracy of plasma GFAP was tested using a cut-off value of 0.29 ng/ml. Results: Blood samples of 74 patients were analysed. Twenty-five patients had ICH (mean age 69 ± 11 years, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 15) and 49 IS (mean age 75 ± 10 years, median NIHSS 6). Nine ICH (0 IS patients) had GFAP-levels above 0.29 ng/ml. The sensitivity and specificity of GFAP for differentiating between ICH and AIS were 36.0 and 100%. The sensitivity for ICH volume >15 ml was 61.5%. ICH patients without GFAP elevation had significantly smaller hemorrhage volumes (median 4.5 vs. 37.6 ml, p = 0.004) and were less likely to deteriorate (19 vs. 56%, p = 0.087). Conclusions: GFAP levels >0.29 ng/ml were seen only in ICH, thus confirming the diagnosis of ICH during prehospital care. However, sensitivity is low particularly in smaller hemorrhages.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Investigative Medicine
                J Investig Med
                BMJ
                1081-5589
                1708-8267
                November 26 2020
                December 2020
                December 2020
                September 08 2020
                : 68
                : 8
                : 1379-1385
                Article
                10.1136/jim-2020-001432
                32907910
                da28272b-bb3c-4d7b-ad9a-9fc90eb9d6d7
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article