“CHANGES IN THE NERVOUS SYSTEM IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE 2 WITH NEPHROPATHY AND PROGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF NEUROMARKERS OF BRAIN INJURY. LITERATURE REVIEW"
Abstract
THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY is to carry out an analysis of the literature evaluating diabetic encephalopathy by determining neuromarkers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS. In this article, the authors analyzed the literature on the role of neuromarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing program hemodialysis.
RESEARCH RESULTS. Among biochemical markers, the determination of the level of neurospecific proteins is actively being investigated. The main part of them is autoantigens, entering the bloodstream, can cause the appearance of autoantibodies, which, when the blood-brain barrier is impaired, enter the brain from the blood vessel and cause morphological changes, destructive processes in neurons, as well as the development of nonspecific acute-phase reactions like edema or inflammation. Biomarker studies for the diagnosis of various brain lesions have been under way for more than 20 years, but at present no ideal biomarker has been found. Among biochemical markers, the determination of the level of neurospecific proteins is being actively studied. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis, this issue is also relevant in view of the frequent vascular cerebrovascular complications, but few studies have been conducted.
CONCLUSIONS. All of the above emphasizes the need to identify the features of clinical and functional changes in the nervous system in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving program hemodialysis and to evaluate the prognostic value of neuromarkers in early detection of the degree of brain damage.
References
2. Belousova N.P., Gromova O.A., Pepelyaev E.G., Semenov V.A., Subbotin A.V. Vzaimosvyaz kognitivnyh narushenij i urovnya BNDF u lic molodogo vozrasta // Medicina v Kuzbase. 2017. T. 16, №4. S. 39-43.
3. Blinov D.V. Ocenka pronicaemosti GEB dlya nejrospecificheskoj enolazy pri perinatalnom gipoksicheski-ishemicheskom porazhenii CNS // Akusherstvo, ginekologiya i reprodukciya. 2013. №4. S. 15-19.
4. Blinov D.V. Pokazateli soderzhaniya gliofibrillyarnogo kislogo proteina v syvorotke krovi posle cerebralnoj ishemii v perinatalnom periode // Akusherstvo, ginekologiya i reprodukciya. 2014. №1. S. 6-11.
5.Vaulin I.N. Kliniko-patogeneticheskie osobennosti korrekcii izmenenij nervnoj sistemy bolnyh s hronicheskoj boleznyu pochek V stadii// diss. na soisk. uch.st kandidat medicinskih nauk po VAK RF 14.01.04, Moskva, 129 str
6. Vedunova M.V., Saharnova T.A., Mitroshina E.V., Shishkina T.V., Astrahanova T.A., Muhina I.V. Antigipoksicheskie i nejroprotektivnye svojstva nejrotroficheskih faktorov BNDF i GNDF // STM. 2014. T. 6, №4. S. 38-47.
7. Gackih I.V., Veselova O.F., Petrova M.M. Rol mozgovogo nejrotroficheskogo faktora (BNDF) v diagnostike kognitivnoj disfunkcii u pacientov s saharnym diabetom 2 tipa // V mire nauchnyh otkrytij. 2016. №1(73). S. 10-23.
8. Gromova O.A., Pronin A.V., Torshin I.Yu., Kalacheva A.G., Grishina T.R. Nejrotroficheskij i antioksidantnyj potencial nejropeptidov i mikroelementov // Nevrologiya, nejropsihiatriya, psihosomatika. 2015. №7(4). S. 92-100.
9. Gudasheva T.A., Povarnina P.Yu., Seredenin S.B., Tarasyuk A.V. Mozgovoj nejrotroficheskij faktor i ego nizkomolekulyarnye mimetiki // Farmakokinetika i farmakodinamika. 2017. N3. S. 3-13.
10. Derbeneva O.A. Klinicheskaya znachimost proteina S100 kak markera ostrogo cerebralnogo povrezhdeniya // Sibirskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2013. №2. [Elektronnyj resurs]. [URL]: http://ngmu.ru/cozo/mos/article/text_full.php?id=955 (data obrasheniya – 5.10.2018)
11. Egorova E.V., Cybikov N.N., Svirskij R.P. Marker povrezhdeniya mozga –NSE v krovi i nosovom sekrete u bolnyh s cherepno-mozgovoj travmoj i hronicheskimi rinitami // Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2010. №3-4. S.63-65.
12.Epifanceva N.N., Borshikova T.I., Churlyaev Yu.A., Ratkin I.K., Ekimovskih A.V. Prognosticheskoe znachenie belka S100, nejrospecificheskoj enolazy, endotelina-1 v ostrom periode cherepno-mozgovoj travmy // Medicina neotlozhnyh sostoyanij. 2013. №3(50). S. 85-90.
13. Eralina S.N., Ismailov E.L., Mankaraev K.B. Monitoring issledovaniya markerov, povrezhdeniya mozga S100 i nejrospecificheskoj enolazy dlya opredeleniya prognoza i techeniya cherepno-mozgovoj travmy // Vestnik KazNMU. 2013. №5(2). S. 21-24.
14. Zhukova A.I., Alifirova V.M., Zhukova N.G. Nejrospecificheskaya enolaza kak specificheskij marker nejrodegenerativnogo processa // Byulleten sibirskoj mediciny. 2011. №2. S. 15-21.
15.Kadyrova I.A., Mindubaeva F.A., Grizhibovkij A.M. Sistematicheskij obzor metodov prognozirovaniya ishoda mozgovogo insulta // Ekologiya cheloveka. 2015. №10. S. 55-64.
16. Krasnov A.V. Astrocitarnye belki golovnogo mozga: struktura, funkcii, klinicheskoe znachenie // Nevrologicheskij zhurnal. 2012. №1. S. 37-42.
17. Korneva E.A., Perekrest S.V. Vzaimodejstvie nervnoj i immunnoj sistemy v norme i patologii // Medicinskij akademicheskij zhurnal. 2013. T. 13, №3. S. 7-17.
18. Kuznecova E.B., Gerasimov S.V., Sholomov I.I. Nejrospecificheskaya enolaza kak marker porazheniya nervnoj sistemy pri pervichnom gipotireoze // Saratovskij nauchno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2016. T12, №2. S. 264-267.
19. Lyubimova N.V., Toms M.G., Fu R.G., Bondarenko Yu.V. Klinicheskoe znachenie opredeleniya nejrospecificheskih belkov v syvorotke krovi bolnyh s opuholyami golovnogo mozga // Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2013. №10. S. 40-42.
20. Logvinov I.O., Tarasyuk A.V., Antipov P.I., Antipova T.A. Issledovanie stereospecifichnosti nejroprotektornogo dejstviya dipeptidnogo mimetika mozgovogo nejrotroficheskogo faktora GSB-106 na modeli oksidativnogo stressa v kulture gippokampalnyh kletok linii NT-22 // Farmakokinetika i farmakodinamika. 2017. №3. S. 30-33.
21. Madzhidova E.N., Rahimbaeva G.S., Azizova R.B. Nejroimmunnopatogeneticheskie mehanizmy epilepsii // Epilepsiya i paroksizmalnye sostoyaniya. 2014. №1. S. 15-18.
22. Mycik A.V., Akulinin V.A., Stepanov S.S., Larionov P.M. Vliyanie ishemii na nejroglialnye vzaimootnosheniya lobnoj kory bolshogo mozga cheloveka // Omskij nauchnyj vestnik. 2013. №1. S. 74-77.
23. Larionov M.V., Trubnikova O.A., Plotnikov G.P., Grigorev E.V., Shukevich D.L. Obosnovanie vybora anestetikov s celyu zashity golovnogo mozga i profilaktiki kognitivnogo snizheniya vo vremya operacii koronarnogo shuntirovaniya // Medicina v Kuzbasse. 2015. T. 14, №3. S. 43-51.
24. Lobzin S.V., Golovkin V.I., Kula I.I. Mozgovoj nejrotroficheskij faktor (BNDF) v kachestve immunomodulyatora pri rasseyannom skleroze // Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo centra Rossijskoj akademii nauk. 2015. T. 17, №1(3). S. 774-777.
25.Novoselova M.V., Samojlova Yu.G., Zhukova N.G. Soderzhanie nejrospecificheskih belkov pri kognitivnyh narusheniyah u pacientov s saharnym diabetom 1 tipa // Klinicheskaya medicina. 2014. №8. S. 46-49.
26. Ostrovskaya R.U., Yagubova S.S., Gudasheva T.A. Nizkomolekulyarnyj mimetik NGF korrigiruet kognitivnyj deficit i depressivnye proyavleniya pri eksperimentalnom diabete // Acta naturae. 2017. T. 9, №2(33). S. 100-108.
27. Povarnina P.Yu., Gudasheva T.A., Seredenin S.B. Dimernye dipeptidnye mimetiki 3-j i 4-j petel faktorov rosta nervov aktivny na modeli ishemicheskogo insulta // Farmakokinetika i farmakodinamika. 2016. №3. S.34-37.
28. Selyanina N.V., Karakulova Yu.V. Vliyanie mozgovogo nejrotroficheskogo faktora na reabilitacionnyj potencial posle cherepnomozgovoj travmy // Medicinskij almanah. 2017. T. 50, №5. S. 76-79.
29. Selyanina N.V. Mozgovoj nejrotroficheskij faktor kak prognosticheskij kriterij razvitiya kognitivnyh narushenij u bolnyh ostroj cherepno-mozgovoj travmoj // Medicinskij almanah. 2013. №1(25). S. 127-129.
30. Selyanina N.V., Karakulova Yu.V. Vliyanie mozgovogo nejrotroficheskogo faktora na formirovanie psihovegetativnogo sindroma pri ushibe golovnogo mozga // Saratovskij nauchnomedicinskij zhurnal. 2016. T.12, №3. S. 384-387.
31. Stagnieva I.V., Simbircev A.S. Nejroimmunnoe vospalenie pri zabolevaniyah nosa i okolonosovyh pazuh // Citokiny i vospalenie. 2017. T. 16. №3. S. 18-23.
32. Seepgen A.K., Hristegenson R.N. Biomarkery insulta: progress i problemy diagnoza, prognoza, differencirovaniya i lecheniya // Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2012. №1. S. 16-19.
33. Sozaeva D.I., Berezhanskaya S.B. Osnovnye mehanizmy vzaimodejstviya nervnoj i immunnoj sistem. Kliniko-eksperimentalnye dannye // Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2014. №3(145). S. 145-150.
34. Sidelnikov S.G., Knyazkova L.G., Mogutnova T.A., Lomivorotov V.N. Vliyanie temperaturnogo rezhima iskusstvennogo krovoobrasheniya na dinamiku urovnya markerov cerebralnogo povrezhdeniya // Sibirskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2009. №3. S. 100-103.
35.Tyrtyshnaya A.A., Zozulya A.A. Vliyanie perifericheski-inducirovannogo nejrovospaleniya na kognitivnye funkcii u molodyh i staryh myshej // Tihookeanskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2014. №2(56). S. 23-26.
36.Usmanova D.D., Madzhidova E.N. Uchastie nejrospecificheskogo belka S100 i osnovnogo belka mielina v patogeneze razvitiya hronicheskoj ishemii mozga // Sibirskoe medicinskoe obozrenie. 2017. №1. S. 69-62.
37. Cepilov S.V., Karakulova Yu.V. Nejrotrofiny krovi pri hronicheskoj ishemii golovnogo mozga // Permskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2016. T. XXXIII, №6. S. 60-65.
38. Hrapov Yu.V., Porojskij S.V. Rol biomarkerov povrezhdeniya veshestva golovnogo mozga v diagnostike, ocenke effektivnosti lecheniya i prognozirovanii ishodov tyazheloj cherepno-mozgovoj travmy // Volgogradskij nauchno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2013. №2. S. 10-20.
39. Filimonova T.A. Prognosticheskaya znachimost nejrotroficheskih faktorov i ih receptorov v formirovanii i progressirovanii diabeticheskoj polinejropatii// Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata medicinskih nauk po specialnosti 14.01.11 – nervnye bolezni, g Perm, 2019 g-25 str 40. John T., Dandirdas., Kunig P., Neyer U. et al. Neurological disease of Renal Failure //Neurology and general medicine. — 3rd ed. — 2002. — 131-142.
41. Donato R., Riuzzi F., Sorci G. Causes of elevated serum levels of S100b protein in athletes. European Journal of Applied Phisiology. 2013. V. 113, N3. P. 819-820.
42. Elif D.B., Mustaf A., Serdar K. Comparison of the effect off desflurane and propofol anesthesia on the inflammatory response and S100 b protein during coronary artery bypass grafting. Inflamatory . 2013. V. 36, N6. P. 1327-1333.
43. Jones E.L., Gauge N., Nilsen O.B. et al. Analysis of neuronspecific enolase and S100B as biomarkers of cognitive decline following surgery in older people. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disoders. 2012. V34, N5-6. P. 307-311.
44. Lysaght M. J. Maintence dialysis population dynamics: current trends and lond-term implications // J. Am. Soc. Nephron. - 2002. - Vol. 13, Suppl. 1. - P. 3740.
45. Salama I., Malone P.S., Mihaimeed F. A review of the S100 proteins in cancer. European Journal of surgical oncology. 2008. V. 34, N4. P. 357-364.
46. Yokobori S., Hosein K., Burks S., Sharma I., Gajavelli S., Bullock R. Biomarkers for the clinical differential diagnosis in traumatic brain injury – a systematic review. CNS Neuroscince&Therapeutics. 2013. V19, N8. P. 556-565.
47.Wenqian Z., Jiapeng L., Yifei S., Jiange H. Changes in postoperative cognitive function during offpump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: dose response of propofol. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2016. V. 9, N6. P. 10939-10946. 48. Stephanie Hagg, MB, 1, 2 Lena M. Ship, MD, DMSC, 1, 2 Yucca Putaala et al. 4and on behalf of the FinnDiane Study Group * Frequency of stroke depending on the presence of diabetic nephropathy and severe diabetic retinopathy in patients with diabetes 1 type // Diabetes care. Dec 2013 36 (12): 4140-4146. Published online 2013, November 13th. Doi: 10.2337 / dc13-0669 PMCID:PMC3836162 PMID: 24101700
49. Yu Wang, Xiaoyu Wang, Weizhe Chen, Yi Shao, Jing Zhou, Brain function alterations in patients with diabetic nephropathy complicated by retinopathy under resting state conditions assessed by voxelmirrored homotopic connectivity Endocr Pract. 2020 Mar;26(3):291-298.doi: 10.4158/EP-2019-0355. Epub 2019 Nov 4.
CC BY-ND
A work licensed in this way allows the following:
1. The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work.
2. The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering."
2. The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, in the same form as the original.