Blood biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: A narrative review of current evidence

Iftakher Hossain; Niklas Marklund; Endre Czeiter; Peter Hutchinson; Andras Buki

doi:10.1016/j.bas.2023.102735

Blood biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: A narrative review of current evidence

Brain Spine. 2023 Dec 14:4:102735. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2023.102735. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Iftakher Hossain^{1

2

3}, Niklas Marklund⁴, Endre Czeiter⁵, Peter Hutchinson², Andras Buki⁶

Affiliations

¹ Neurocenter, Department of Neurosurgery, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
² Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Neurosurgery Unit, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
³ Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁴ Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Neurosurgery, Lund University, Department of Neurosurgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
⁵ Department of Neurosurgery, Medical School, Neurotrauma Research Group, Szentagothai Research Centre, And HUN-REN-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary.
⁶ Department of Neurosurgery, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden.

Abstract

Introduction: A blood-based biomarker (BBBM) test could help to better stratify patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), reduce unnecessary imaging, to detect and treat secondary insults, predict outcomes, and monitor treatment effects and quality of care.

Research question: What evidence is available for clinical applications of BBBMs in TBI and how to advance this field?

Material and methods: This narrative review discusses the potential clinical applications of core BBBMs in TBI. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge focused on articles in English with the words "traumatic brain injury" together with the words "blood biomarkers", "diagnostics", "outcome prediction", "extracranial injury" and "assay method" alone-, or in combination.

Results: Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) combined with Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1(UCH-L1) has received FDA clearance to aid computed tomography (CT)-detection of brain lesions in mild (m) TBI. Application of S100B led to reduction of head CT scans. GFAP may also predict magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities in CT-negative cases of TBI. Further, UCH-L1, S100B, Neurofilament light (NF-L), and total tau showed value for predicting mortality or unfavourable outcome. Nevertheless, biomarkers have less role in outcome prediction in mTBI. S100B could serve as a tool in the multimodality monitoring of patients in the neurointensive care unit.

Discussion and conclusion: Largescale systematic studies are required to explore the kinetics of BBBMs and their use in multiple clinical groups. Assay development/cross validation should advance the generalizability of those results which implicated GFAP, S100B and NF-L as most promising biomarkers in the diagnostics of TBI.

Keywords: Blood biomarkers; Diagnostics; Outcome prediction; Traumatic brain injury.

Publication types

Review