Integrated Assessment of GFAP and UCH-L1 for Their Utility in Severity Assessment and Outcome Prediction in Traumatic Brain Injury

Overview

Journal Int J Legal Med

Specialty Forensic Sciences

Date 2024 Jul 8

PMID 38977505

Authors

Deepu Mathew

Purvi Purohit

Ashita Gadwal

Abhishek Anil

Raghavendra Kumar Sharma

Vikas P Meshram

Puneet Setia

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to explore the potential of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis in mild and severe TBI cases, including TBI-related deaths.

Methods: This prospective cohort study includes 40 cases each of mild, severe, fatal TBI cases, and 40 healthy controls. Serum samples were collected from live patients at 8 and 20 h post injury for UCH-L1 and GFAP respectively, and from deceased patients within 6 h of death.

Results: Elevated levels of both GFAP and UCH-L1 were observed in patients with severe and fatal TBI cases. These biomarkers exhibited promising potential for predicting various Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) categories. Combining GFAP and UCH-L1 yielded higher predictive accuracy both for diagnosis and prognosis in TBI cases. The study additionally established specific cut-off levels for GFAP and UCH-L1 stratified according to the severity and prognosis.

Conclusion: GFAP and UCH-L1 individually demonstrated moderate to good discrimination capacity in predicting TBI severity and functional outcomes. However, combining these biomarkers is recommended for improved diagnostic and prognostic utility. This precision tool can enhance patient care, enabling tailored treatment plans, ultimately reducing morbidity and mortality rates in TBI cases.

References

Capizzi A, Woo J, Verduzco-Gutierrez M . Traumatic Brain Injury: An Overview of Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Medical Management. Med Clin North Am. 2020; 104(2):213-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.mcna.2019.11.001. View

Idowu O, Akinbo O . Neurotrauma burden in a tropical urban conurbation level I trauma centre. Injury. 2014; 45(11):1717-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.05.028. View

Gururaj G . Epidemiology of traumatic brain injuries: Indian scenario. Neurol Res. 2002; 24(1):24-8. DOI: 10.1179/016164102101199503. View

Bodien Y, Barra A, Temkin N, Barber J, Foreman B, Vassar M . Diagnosing Level of Consciousness: The Limits of the Glasgow Coma Scale Total Score. J Neurotrauma. 2021; 38(23):3295-3305. PMC: 8917895. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2021.0199. View

Lee B, Newberg A . Neuroimaging in traumatic brain imaging. NeuroRx. 2005; 2(2):372-83. PMC: 1064998. DOI: 10.1602/neurorx.2.2.372. View

Lolli V, Pezzullo M, Delpierre I, Sadeghi N . MDCT imaging of traumatic brain injury. Br J Radiol. 2015; 89(1061):20150849. PMC: 4985461. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150849. View

Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim K, Mahesh M, Gould R . Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(22):2078-86. PMC: 4635397. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427. View

Wang K, Yang Z, Zhu T, Shi Y, Rubenstein R, Tyndall J . An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018; 18(2):165-180. PMC: 6359936. DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089. View

Gyorgy A, Ling G, Wingo D, Walker J, Tong L, Parks S . Time-dependent changes in serum biomarker levels after blast traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2011; 28(6):1121-6. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2010.1561. View

10.

Lorente L . Biomarkers Associated with the Outcome of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients. Brain Sci. 2017; 7(11). PMC: 5704149. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci7110142. View

11.

Wilde E, Wanner I, Kenney K, Gill J, Stone J, Disner S . A Framework to Advance Biomarker Development in the Diagnosis, Outcome Prediction, and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2022; 39(7-8):436-457. PMC: 8978568. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2021.0099. View

12.

Huebschmann N, Luoto T, Karr J, Berghem K, Blennow K, Zetterberg H . Comparing Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP) in Serum and Plasma Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Older Adults. Front Neurol. 2020; 11:1054. PMC: 7530818. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.01054. View

13.

Bishop P, Rocca D, Henley J . Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1): structure, distribution and roles in brain function and dysfunction. Biochem J. 2016; 473(16):2453-62. PMC: 4980807. DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20160082. View

14.

Lombardino A, Li X, Hertel M, Nottebohm F . Replaceable neurons and neurodegenerative disease share depressed UCHL1 levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(22):8036-41. PMC: 1142397. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503239102. View

15.

Ward M, Weber A, Merrill V, Welch R, Bazarian J, Christenson R . Predictive Performance of Traumatic Brain Injury Biomarkers in High-Risk Elderly Patients. J Appl Lab Med. 2020; 5(1):91-100. DOI: 10.1093/jalm.2019.031393. View

16.

Crupi R, Cordaro M, Cuzzocrea S, Impellizzeri D . Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: From Present to Future. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020; 9(4). PMC: 7222188. DOI: 10.3390/antiox9040297. View

17.

Prins M, Greco T, Alexander D, Giza C . The pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury at a glance. Dis Model Mech. 2013; 6(6):1307-15. PMC: 3820255. DOI: 10.1242/dmm.011585. View

18.

Zou L, Pierce B, Nielson J . A Multi-Modal Assessment of Clinical Predictors for Traumatic Brain Injury End-Points. J Neurotrauma. 2020; 38(2):261-271. PMC: 8020558. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2020.7222. View

19.

Mutch C, Talbott J, Gean A . Imaging Evaluation of Acute Traumatic Brain Injury. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2016; 27(4):409-39. PMC: 5027071. DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2016.05.011. View

20.

Yue J, Yuh E, Korley F, Winkler E, Sun X, Puffer R . Association between plasma GFAP concentrations and MRI abnormalities in patients with CT-negative traumatic brain injury in the TRACK-TBI cohort: a prospective multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2019; 18(10):953-961. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30282-0. View