{"title":"Triglyceride-glucose index as a biomarker to differentiate stroke etiologic subtypes: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.","authors":"Nizar Daoussi, Imen Zemni, Narjes Gouta, Yasmine Saad, Rihab Ben Dhia, Mariem Mhiri, Asma Belghith-Sriha, Mahbouba Frih-Ayed","doi":"10.1080/17520363.2024.2443382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate distinction between stroke etiologic subtypes is critical for physicians to provide tailored treatment. The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, a marker of insulin resistance, has been associated with stroke risk but its role in distinguishing stroke etiologic subtypes remains unclear. We aimed to assess the TyG index's ability to differentiate cardioembolic (CE) from non-cardioembolic (NCE) strokes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied 320 consecutive stroke patients in a cross-sectional analysis. Binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the association between the TyG index and the studied stroke subtypes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified the optimal TyG index cutoff for CE vs. NCE differentiation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TyG index correlated independently with NCE subtype (OR = 2.38; 95% CI = 1.52-3.73; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed increasing NCE stroke risk with higher TyG index quartiles. The ROC curve yielded an AUC of 0.636 (95% CI = 0.565-0.707; <i>p</i> < 0.001), with a cutoff of 8.8 (sensitivity = 68.8%, specificity = 57%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TyG index can be a useful biomarker in the differentiation between CE and NCE strokes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9182,"journal":{"name":"Biomarkers in medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"23-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarkers in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17520363.2024.2443382","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Accurate distinction between stroke etiologic subtypes is critical for physicians to provide tailored treatment. The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, a marker of insulin resistance, has been associated with stroke risk but its role in distinguishing stroke etiologic subtypes remains unclear. We aimed to assess the TyG index's ability to differentiate cardioembolic (CE) from non-cardioembolic (NCE) strokes.
Methods: We studied 320 consecutive stroke patients in a cross-sectional analysis. Binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the association between the TyG index and the studied stroke subtypes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified the optimal TyG index cutoff for CE vs. NCE differentiation.
Results: TyG index correlated independently with NCE subtype (OR = 2.38; 95% CI = 1.52-3.73; p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed increasing NCE stroke risk with higher TyG index quartiles. The ROC curve yielded an AUC of 0.636 (95% CI = 0.565-0.707; p < 0.001), with a cutoff of 8.8 (sensitivity = 68.8%, specificity = 57%).
Conclusion: The TyG index can be a useful biomarker in the differentiation between CE and NCE strokes.
期刊介绍:
Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory.
Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice.
As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications.
Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest.
Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.