Acute Stroke Biomarkers: Are We There Yet?

Marie Dagonnier; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis; Helen M Dewey; David W Howells

doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.619721

Acute Stroke Biomarkers: Are We There Yet?

Front Neurol. 2021 Feb 5:12:619721. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.619721. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Marie Dagonnier^{1

2}, Geoffrey A Donnan^{1

3}, Stephen M Davis³, Helen M Dewey^{1

4}, David W Howells^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Stroke Division, Melbourne Brain Centre, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
² Department of Neurology, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Mons, Belgium.
³ Melbourne Brain Centre at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
⁴ Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
⁵ Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Distinguishing between stroke subtypes and knowing the time of stroke onset are critical in clinical practice. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy are very effective treatments in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. Neuroimaging helps decide who should be treated and how they should be treated but is expensive, not always available and can have contraindications. These limitations contribute to the under use of these reperfusion therapies. Aim: An alternative approach in acute stroke diagnosis is to identify blood biomarkers which reflect the body's response to the damage caused by the different types of stroke. Specific blood biomarkers capable of differentiating ischemic from hemorrhagic stroke and mimics, identifying large vessel occlusion and capable of predicting stroke onset time would expedite diagnosis and increase eligibility for reperfusion therapies. Summary of Review: To date, measurements of candidate biomarkers have usually occurred beyond the time window for thrombolysis. Nevertheless, some candidate markers of brain tissue damage, particularly the highly abundant glial structural proteins like GFAP and S100β and the matrix protein MMP-9 offer promising results. Grouping of biomarkers in panels can offer additional specificity and sensitivity for ischemic stroke diagnosis. Unbiased "omics" approaches have great potential for biomarker identification because of greater gene, protein, and metabolite coverage but seem unlikely to be the detection methodology of choice because of their inherent cost. Conclusion: To date, despite the evolution of the techniques used in their evaluation, no individual candidate or multimarker panel has proven to have adequate performance for use in an acute clinical setting where decisions about an individual patient are being made. Timing of biomarker measurement, particularly early when decision making is most important, requires urgent and systematic study.

Keywords: acute; biomarker; microarray; review; stroke.

Publication types

Review