Glucocorticoid Resistance is Associated with Poor Functional Outcome After Stroke

Systemic inflammation is associated with poor outcome after stroke. Glucocorticoids (GCs) play a fundamental role in limiting inflammation. The aim of this study was to explore the associations between GC sensitivity, systemic inflammation, and outcome after ischemic stroke. The study population com...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cellular and molecular neurobiology 2020-11, Vol.40 (8), p.1321-1326
Main Authors: Lopatkiewicz, Anna Maria, Gradek-Kwinta, Elzbieta, Czyzycki, Mateusz, Pera, Joanna, Slowik, Agnieszka, Dziedzic, Tomasz
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Cell Biology
Dexamethasone
Glucocorticoids
Inflammation
Interleukin 6
Ischemia
Lipopolysaccharides
Neurobiology
Neurosciences
Original Research
Population studies
Stroke
Tumor necrosis factor-α
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Systemic inflammation is associated with poor outcome after stroke. Glucocorticoids (GCs) play a fundamental role in limiting inflammation. The aim of this study was to explore the associations between GC sensitivity, systemic inflammation, and outcome after ischemic stroke. The study population compised 246 ischemic stroke patients (median age: 69.0 years; 41.1% female). To assess GC sensitivity, we incubated venous blood samples that were obtained at day 3 after stroke with lipopolysaccharide (10 ng/mL) and dexamethasone (10 –6  mol/L). We defined the GC sensitivity index as the ratio of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) released after blood stimulation with lipopolysaccharide and dexamethasone to the amount of TNFα released after blood stimulation with lipopolysaccharide alone. A higher index indicates higher GC resistance. The patients with poor functional outcome had a higher GC sensitivity index than those with good outcome (median: 16.1% vs. 13.5%, P  
ISSN:0272-4340
1573-6830
DOI:10.1007/s10571-020-00818-1