PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF GLIAL FIBRILLARY ACIDIC PROTEIN IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF SPINAL CORD INJURY IN ITS EXPERIMENTAL MODELING
Keywords:
glial fibrillary acidic protein; spinal cord injury; experiment; pathophysiology; specificity; sensitivityAbstract
The aim of the study. To determine the relationship between glial fibrillary acidic protein and spinal cord injury in its experimental modeling. Materials and methods. The experiments were performed on 180 male rats on the spinal cord injury model. Experimental spinal injury is reproduced according to a modification of the standard model of moderate contusion spinal cord injury. Outbred sexually mature male rats weighing 200-230 g are used as experimental animals. During the study, the animals are divided into three groups: the first control - 6 animals that were kept in vivarium conditions during the entire experiment at t = 22 ° C. The second group, consisting of 20 animals, the lumbar spine of which was injured by a load weighing 250 g from a height of 20 cm. The third group included 20 animals, the lumbar spine of which was injured by a load weighing 250 g from a height of 40 cm. Results of the study. Serum GFAP levels were significantly (p = 0.02 to <0.0001) higher in AIS A patients who failed to improve at 6 months, predicting AIS grade conversion with a sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of 76% (61, 87) and 77% (55, 92) using GFAP 72% (57, 84) and 77% (55, 92) at 72 hours, respectively. Independent of clinical baseline assessment, a serum GFAP cutoff of 170 pg/mL at 72 hours predicted those rats to be classified as fully motor (AIS A/B) versus incomplete motor (AIS C/D) at 14 days with a sensitivity of 87% (76, 94) and a specificity of 84% (69, 94); a serum GFAP cutoff value of 13,180 pg/mL at 72 hours yielded a sensitivity of 90% (80, 96) and a specificity of 84% (69, 94).
References
• 1.Lee RS, Noonan VK, Batke J, et al. . Feasibility of patient recruitment into clinical trials of experimental treatments for acute spinal cord injury. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(10):1338-1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 2.Kirshblum S, Snider B, Eren F, Guest J. Characterizing natural recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(9):1267-1284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 3.Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, et al. . Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord. 2007;45(3):190-205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 4.Kwon BK, Bloom O, Wanner IB, et al. . Neurochemical biomarkers in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(10):819-831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 5.Hulme CH, Brown SJ, Fuller HR, et al. . The developing landscape of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for spinal cord injury in cerebrospinal fluid and blood. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(2):114-125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 6.Gan ZS, Stein SC, Swanson R, et al. . Blood biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: a quantitative assessment of diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Front Neurol. 2019;10:446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 7.Czeiter E, Amrein K, Gravesteijn BY, et al. . Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study. EBioMedicine. 2020;56:102785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 8.Bazarian JJ, Biberthaler P, Welch RD, et al. . Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(9):782-789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 9.Okonkwo DO, Puffer RC, Puccio AM, et al. . Point-of-Care platform blood biomarker testing of glial fibrillary acidic protein versus S100 calcium-binding protein B for prediction of traumatic brain injuries: a transforming research and clinical knowledge in traumatic brain injury study. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(23):2460-2467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 10.Shahim P, Politis A, van der Merwe A, et al. . Time course and diagnostic utility of NfL, tau, GFAP, and UCH-L1 in subacute and chronic TBI. Neurology. 2020;95(6):e623-e636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 11.Wang KKW, Kobeissy FH, Shakkour Z, Tyndall JA. Thorough overview of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein as tandem biomarkers recently cleared by US Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of intracranial injuries among patients with traumatic brain injury. Acute Med Surg. 2021;8(1):e622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 12.Shahim P, Gren M, Liman V, et al. . Serum neurofilament light protein predicts clinical outcome in traumatic brain injury. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):36791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 13.Ljungqvist J, Zetterberg H, Mitsis M, Blennow K, Skoglund T. Serum neurofilament light protein as a marker for diffuse axonal injury: results from a case series study. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(5):1124-1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 14.Kwon BK, Streijger F, Fallah N, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers to stratify injury severity and predict outcome in human traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(3):567-580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 15.Kwon BK, Stammers AM, Belanger LM, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers of injury severity in acute human spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(4):669-682.
