| Literature DB >> 30468006 |
Piotr Czupryna1, Sambor Grygorczuk1, Sławomir Pancewicz1, Renata Świerzbińska1, Joanna Zajkowska1, Katarzyna Krawczuk2, Justyna Dunaj1, Justyna Filipiuk3, Ewelina Kruszewska1, Karol Borawski1, Anna Moniuszko-Malinowska1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was the assessment of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and S-100 concentration in serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in patients with different clinical forms of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE).Entities:
Keywords: NSE; S100B; TBE; neurodegeneration
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30468006 PMCID: PMC6305942 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
Comparison of evaluated parameters in the examined groups
| Group |
| Demographics | Serum | CSF | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Female | Male | NSE1 | NSE2 | NSE2/NSE1 | S100B1 | S100B2 | S100B2/S100B1 | NSE1 | NSE2 | NSE2/NSE1 | S100B1 | S100B2 | S100B2/S100B1 | |||
| I Meningoencephalitis | 17 | 54.63 ± 13.18 | 5 | 12 | 17.5 ± 18.1 | 20.7 ± 15 | 2 ± 2 | 141.1 ± 80.2 | 51.4 ± 50.8 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 12 ± 4.8 | 16.4 ± 7.9 | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 186.3 ± 47.5 | 188.6 ± 67.8 | 1 ± 0.5 | |
| Ia full recovery | 11 | 53.9 ± 9.5 | 4 | 7 | 13.3 ± 5.2 | 34.3 ± 9.7 | 3.6 ± 0.9 | 148.5 ± 84.6 | 20.9 ± 30.2 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 12.3 ± 5.6 | 19.3 ± 9.8 | 1.9 ± 1.3 | 191.1 ± 47.4 | 173.5 ± 60 | 1 ± 0.6 | |
| Ib sequelae | 6 | 52.5 ± 16.3 | 1 | 5 | 20.5 ± 20.6 | 16.7 ± 15 | 1.52 ± 2 | 134.4 ± 72.1 | 61.6 ± 48.4 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 10.2 ± 5.2 | 13.0 ± 6.9 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 177.9 ± 55 | 167.9 ± 59.1 | 1 ± 0.5 | |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.04 | 0.04 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
| II Meningitis | 26 | 50.32 ± 12.53 | 9 | 17 | 13.3 ± 10.8 | 17.7 ± 8.2 | 1.6 ± 1.7 | 127.3 ± 43.1 | 87.6 ± 53.5 | 0.5 ± 0.4 | 6.7 ± 6.7 | 13.6 ± 10 | 2.9 ± 3 | 185.6 ± 33.8 | 195.8 ± 44.8 | 1 ± 0.5 | |
| CG | 13 | 52.31 ± 15.34 | 4 | 9 | 17.5 ± 6.3 | 80.8 ± 58.3 | 6.7 ± 2.2 | 183.9 ± 19.1 | |||||||||
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.0002 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |||||
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.04 | ns | ns | ns | |||||||||
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |||||||||
CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CG, control group.
p I versus II—comparison of analyzed parameters between Sample 1 and Sample 2.
p I versus CG—comparison of analyzed parameters between Sample 1 and control group.
p II versus CG—comparison of analyzed parameters between Sample 2 and control group.
S100B2/S100B1—ratio of S100B in Sample 2 to Sample 1.
NSE2/NSE1—ratio of NSE in Sample 2 to Sample 1.
Figure 1Comparison of NSE concentration in CSF between meningoencephalitis, meningitis, and controls
Figure 2Comparison of NSE concentration in serum between meningoencephalitis, meningitis, and controls
Figure 3Comparison of S100B concentration in CSF between meningoencephalitis, meningitis, and controls
Figure 4Comparison of S100B concentration in serum between meningoencephalitis, meningitis, and controls
Figure 5Comparison of NSE concentration in CSF between meningoencephalitis and meningitis groups by the use of ROC plots (p = 0.0001). AUC 0.839. Cutoff 6.89
Figure 6Comparison of NSE concentration in serum II between sequelae group and meningoencephalitis patients by ROC plots (p = 0.0001). AUC 0.909. Cutoff 20.73
Figure 7Comparison of NSE concentration ratio serum II/serum I between sequelae group and other meningoencephalitis patients by ROC plots (p = 0.0001). AUC 0.900. Cutoff 2.09