| Literature DB >> 33773595 |
Claudia Cicognola1,2, Shorena Janelidze3, Joakim Hertze4, Henrik Zetterberg5,6,7,8, Kaj Blennow5,6, Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren3,9,10, Oskar Hansson11,12.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a marker of astroglial activation and astrocytosis. We assessed the ability of plasma GFAP to detect Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in the form of AD-related amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology and conversion to AD dementia in a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Blood biomarkers; GFAP; Mild cognitive impairment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33773595 PMCID: PMC8005231 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-021-00804-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Demographic and clinical data
| Stable MCI (Aβ−) | Stable MCI (Aβ+) | MCI-AD (Aβ+) | MCI-other (Aβ−) | MCI-other (Aβ+) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 58 | 21 | 47 | 25 | 9 |
| Age | 69 (8) | 69 (6) | 76 (7) | 73 (7) | 74 (6) |
| Gender (% female) | 55% | 48% | 75% | 44% | 33% |
| | 29% | 81% | 81% | 44% | 78% |
| Aβ42/40 | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.01) | 0.05 (0.01) | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.06 (0.01) |
| T-tau (pg/mL) | 68 (29) | 111 (72) | 148 (70) | 90 (43) | 75 (33) |
| P-tau181 (pg/mL) | 26 (11) | 40 (21) | 54 (22) | 30 (12) | 33 (11) |
| GFAP baseline (pg/mL) | 36 (17) | 46 (25) | 67 (24) | 42 (16) | 52 (11) |
| GFAP follow-up (pg/mL) | 43 (16) | 65 (41) | 94 (34) | 67 (27) | 78 (34) |
Values are expressed as mean (SD). Abbreviations: Aβ β-amyloid, Aβ+ Aβ positive, Aβ− Aβ negative, CSF cerebrospinal fluid, GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein
Correlations between plasma GFAP baseline levels and age, CSF Aβ42/40, CSF T-tau, and CSF P-tau181
| Age | Aβ42/40 | T-tau | P-tau181 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.57 | − 0.33 | 0.06 | − 0.03 | ||
| < 0.0001 | 0.003 | 0.61 | 0.79 | ||
| 0.46 | −0.18 | 0.29 | 0.28 | ||
| < 0.0001 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
r Spearman’s r, Aβ+ Aβ positive, Aβ− Aβ negative
Fig. 1a Plasma GFAP in the Aβ-positive (Aβ+, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 < 0.07) and Aβ-negative (Aβ−, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 > 0.07) groups. b Plasma GFAP in the Aβ42/tau positive (Aβ42/T-tau+, CSF Aβ42/T-tau < 7.3) and Aβ42/tau negative (Aβ42/tau−, CSF Aβ42/T-tau > 7.3) groups. c Plasma GFAP in the stable MCI, MCI-AD and MCI-other groups stratified by Aβ status. Line across represents median, box represents interquartile range (IQR), bars represent min and max value (within ± 1.5 IQR). P values were calculated with univariate linear model and least significant differences (LSD) post hoc tests, with adjustments for age and sex
Fig. 2ROC curves for plasma GFAP and GFAP combined with additional predictors (APOE, age) to assess accuracy when predicting Aβ positivity (a), Aβ42/T-tau positivity (b), and MCI-AD status (c). AUC, area under the curve
Combined results from binary logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis for prediction of Aβ-positive status
| AIC | AUC | 95% CI | Difference AUC ( | Δ AIC with GFAP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFAP | < 0.0001 | 177 | 0.79 | 0.72–0.86 | – | – |
| Age | < 0.0001 | 208 | 0.64 | 0.56–0.73 | – | – |
| < 0.0001 | 187 | 0.73 | 0.65–0.81 | – | – | |
| GFAP and age | < 0.0001 | 179 | 0.78 | 0.71–0.86 | ns | 2 |
| GFAP and | < 0.0001 | 152 | 0.86 | 0.80–0.92 | 0.02 | −25 |
| GFAP, age, and | < 0.0001 | 153 | 0.86 | 0.80–0.92 | 0.02 | −24 |
Aβ-positive status was defined as CSF Aβ42/40 < 0.07. AIC Akaike information criterion, AUC area under the curve, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, difference AUC (p) difference between AUCs measured with DeLong test (AUC of GFAP used as reference), Δ AIC difference in AIC (AIC of GFAP used as reference), ns not significant
Combined results from binary logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis for prediction of Aβ42/T-tau-positive status
| AIC | AUC | 95% CI | Δ AIC with GFAP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFAP | < 0.0001 | 172 | 0.80 | 0.73–0.87 | – |
| Age | < 0.0001 | 209 | 0.64 | 0.55–0.73 | – |
| < 0.0001 | 196 | 0.68 | 0.59–0.76 | – | |
| GFAP and age | < 0.0001 | 174 | 0.80 | 0.73–0.87 | 2 |
| GFAP and | < 0.0001 | 157 | 0.84 | 0.78–0.91 | −15 |
| GFAP, age, and | < 0.0001 | 159 | 0.84 | 0.78–0.91 | −13 |
Aβ42/T-tau-positive status was defined as CSF Aβ42/T-tau < 7.3. AIC Akaike information criterion, AUC area under the curve, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, Δ AIC difference in AIC (AIC of GFAP used as reference)
Combined results from binary logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis for prediction of subsequent development of AD dementia (MCI-AD)
| AIC | AUC | 95% CI | Δ AIC with GFAP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFAP | < 0.0001 | 148 | 0.84 | 0.77–0.91 | – |
| Age | < 0.0001 | 171 | 0.73 | 0.64–0.81 | – |
| < 0.0001 | 177 | 0.67 | 0.58–0.76 | – | |
| GFAP and age | < 0.0001 | 145 | 0.83 | 0.76–0.90 | −3 |
| GFAP and | < 0.0001 | 140 | 0.86 | 0.80–0.93 | −8 |
| GFAP, age, and | < 0.0001 | 136 | 0.86 | 0.81–0.92 | −12 |
AIC Akaike information criterion, AUC area under the curve, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals, Δ AIC difference in AIC (AIC of GFAP used as reference)
Fig. 3Longitudinal slopes for plasma GFAP from linear mixed-effects model adjusted for age and sex. X-axis represents time between baseline and follow-up plasma sampling; y-axis represents plasma concentrations in pg/mL. Plasma GFAP measurements were stratified by Aβ-positive (Aβ+) status defined by CSF Aβ 42/40 < 0.07 (a). Slopes for Aβ-positive subjects were significantly steeper than Aβ-negative (p = 0.007). In b, plasma GFAP measurements were stratified by clinical diagnosis at follow-up and Aβ status. GFAP slopes in MCI-AD and Aβ-negative MCI-other subjects were significantly steeper compared to stable MCI Aβ-negative (p < 0.0001 both) and stable MCI Aβ-positive (p = 0.049, p = 0.037, respectively)