Table 3 Summary of studies for GFAP.
Study no. | Study | Groups analyzed | Outcome measure | Magnitude of measure: mean (SD)/median (IQR) | Statistical analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Abu-Rumeileh et al. [55] | Control (n = 40) | AD (n = 40) | CSF GFAP level | Control: 0.665 (0.409–0.978) ng/mL (median) | AD (1.081 [0.534–1.422] ng/mL) (median) | Kruskal–Wallis test p = 0.002 |
2 | Teitsdottir et al. [60] | CSF non-AD profile (n = 24) | CSF AD profile (n = 28) | CSF levels of GFAP | Non-AD profile (1.0 [0.1–7.1] ng/mL) | AD profile (1.3 [0.5–21.3] ng/mL) | Mann–Whitney U test p = 0.09 |
3 | Prins et al. [62] | Aβ+ (n = 50) | Aβ− (n = 50) | Plasma levels of GFAP | Aβ− (134.0 ± 50.71 pg/mL) | Aβ+ (195.1 ± 87.13 pg/mL) | Independent t-test p < 0.001 |
4 | Pereira et al. [58] | Cognitively unimpaired Aβ– (n = 217) | Cognitively impaired Aβ+ (n = 78) | CSF and plasma levels of GFAP | Cognitively unimpaired Aβ− plasma (179.6 [31.1–534.9] pg/mL); CSF (13.5 [4.3–34.6] pg/mL) | Cognitively impaired Aβ+: plasma (262.6 [94.0–650.7] pg/mL); CSF: (17.7 [5.5–35.6] pg/mL) | Kruskal–Wallis test plasma: p < 0.001 |
Cognitively unimpaired Aβ+ (n = 71) | Cognitively impaired Aβ− (n = 63) | Cognitively unimpaired Aβ+ plasma (252.1 [86.1–672.9] pg/mL); CSF: (16.1 [5.8–35.1] pg/mL) | Cognitively impaired Aβ−: plasma (166.9 [24.5–476.0] pg/mL); CSF: (14.7 [5.4–31.2] pg/mL) | Kruskal–Wallis test CSF: p < 0.001 | |||
5 | Chatterjee et al. [69] | Cognitively normal Aβ− (n = 63) | Cognitively normal Aβ+ (n = 33) | Plasma levels of GFAP | Aβ− (151.42 ± 58.49 pg/mL) | Aβ+ (240.12 ± 124.88 pg/mL) | Student’s t-test p ≤ 0.0001 |
6 | Katsipis et al. [73] | Control (n = 20) | MCI (n = 20) | Saliva levels of GFAP | Controls (dot-blot: 11.88 ± 2.42; ELISA: 13.35 ± 3.03, both in terms of ng/mg of total protein) | MCI (dot-blot: 6.50 ± 1.30a; ELISA: 6.82 ± 2.10a, both in terms of ng/mg of total protein) | avs. control: p < 0.0001 bvs. MCI: p < 0.001 cvs. MCI: p < 0.0001 |
AD dementia (n = 20) | AD dementia (dot-blot: 4.57 ± 1.79a,b; ELISA: 3.56 ± 2.24a,c, both in terms of ng/mg of total protein) | ||||||
7 | Oeckl et al. [72] | Control (n = 129) | MCI-AD (n = 111) | Serum levels of GFAP | Control (167 [108–234] pg/mL) | MCI-AD (300 [232–433] pg/mL) | p < 0.001 |
AD dementia (n = 230) | AD dementia (375 [276–505] pg/mL) | p < 0.001 | |||||
8 | Oeckl et al. [68] | Control (n = 34) | AD (n = 28) | CSF and serum levels of GFAP | Control (serum: 157 [126–218]; CSF: 826 [628–1041] pg/mL) | AD (serum: 376 [294–537]; CSF: 1396 [1007–2842] pg/mL) | p < 0.001 |
9 | Parvizi et al. [67] | Control (n = 44; n = 36 for CSF) | MCI-AD (n = 63; n = 30 for CSF) | Plasma and CSF levels of GFAP | Control (plasma: 79 [53.7–120.6]; CSF in 36 patients: 11,145.3 [6980.5–14,373.8] pg/mL) | MCI-AD (plasma: 167.5 [93.8–256.3]; CSF in 30 patients: 8946.2 [7028.8–13,842.7] pg/mL) | p < 0.001 for plasma; p < 0.01 for CSF |
AD dementia (n = 60; n = 37 for CSF) | AD dementia (plasma: 181.9 [129.6–269.6]; CSF in 37 patients: 13,663.5 [9945.4–21,059.1] pg/mL) | ||||||
10 | Pontecorvo et al. [71] | Placebo (n = 126) | Donanemab (n = 131) | Plasma levels of GFAP at week 76 of treatment | Placebo (242.25 [87.293]) for 78 patients pg/mL | Donanemab (189.99 [83.675]) for 83 patients pg/mL | p < 0.001 vs. placebo |
11 | Stocker et al. [70] | Control (n = 507) | AD dementia (0–9 years’ follow-up; n = 51) | Plasma levels of GFAP | Control (78.2 [13.3–529.0] pg/mL for 504 subjects) | AD dementia (0–9 years) 151.4 ± 122.1 pg/mL | p < 0.0001 vs. controls |
AD dementia (9–17 years’ follow-up; n = 94) | AD dementia (9–17 years) 123.6 ± 56.2 pg/mL | p < 0.0001 vs. controls | |||||
AD dementia (0–17 years’ follow-up; n = 145) | AD dementia (0–17 years) 133.3 ± 86.0 pg/mL | p < 0.0001 vs. controls | |||||
