Plasma Levels Of uPAR Research Articles

Evaluation of Plasma Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor (UPAR) in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B, C and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) as Serological Fibrosis Marker

Progressive hepatic fibrosis is the main predictor of outcome and prognosis in chronic liver diseases. The importance of the coagulation cascade has been defined in liver fibrosis; however, the role of the fibrinolytic pathway has not been clear yet. We aimed to evaluate the association between the plasma levels of soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (uPAR) and the severity of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B, C and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). 96 chronic hepatitis B, 22 chronic hepatitis C and 11 NAFLD patients together with 47 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. uPAR plasma levels were detected by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) method. The plasma levels of uPAR in patients with chronic hepatitis B and C significantly exceeded those of healthy controls (P<0.001) while mean uPAR levels in patients with NAFLD were not different from healthy controls. Mean uPAR levels in chronic viral hepatitis patients with F1-F3 fibrosis and F4-F6 fibrosis were higher than those of control group (P<0.001). Mean uPAR level in patients with F4-F6 fibrosis was significantly higher than that of patients with F1-F3 fibrosis (P<0.001). This is the first study that investigated uPAR as a fibrosis marker in NAFLD and chronic hepatitis B patients. It is suggested that plasma levels of uPAR are closely related to the fibrosis stage in chronic hepatitis B and C and that uPAR might be a noninvasive marker of liver fibrosis.

Dynamic changes in plasma levels of urokinase type plasminogen activator and urokinase type plasminogen activator receptor in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome

To study the dynamic changes in plasma levels of urokinase type plasminogen activator (uPA) and urokinase type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) and their influence on prognosis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). In this study, a prospective clinical case control study was adopted. Eighty-five patients were divided into two groups according to diagnostic criteria of SIRS: SIRS patients (n=50) and non-SIRS patients (n=35). SIRS patients were again divided into SIRS group (n=26) and SIRS complicated by multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) group (n=24) by their severity, and survival group (n=35) and non-survival group (n=15) by their outcome . The control group comprised of 30 healthy blood donors. Venous blood samples of about 2 ml were collected at the time when non-SIRS patients were admitted, and blood samples were collected in SIRS patients on 1,3, 5 and 7 days when SIRS was diagnosed, and in the healthy control group blood samples were collected when they visited the General Health Check-up Division at our hospital. Plasma levels of uPA and uPAR were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and relationship between plasma level of uPAR and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II(APACHEII) score was analyzed using Pearson correlation. The plasma levels of uPA and uPAR in patients of SIRS and MODS were obviously higher compared with non-SIRS and healthy controls [uPA (μg/L): 1.208±0.264, 1.120±0.276 vs. 0.744±0.190, 0.782±0.257; uPAR (μg/L): 3.704±1.018, 4.970±1.284 vs. 1.892±0.476, 1.823± 0.797, all P<0.01]. The plasma level of uPAR in MODS group was obviously higher than that of SIRS group (P<0.01). The plasma level of uPA (μg/L) in non-survival group was markedly elevated on 5 days and 7 days compared to survival group (5 days: 1.177±0.185 vs. 0.856±0.223, 7 days: 1.377±0.185 vs. 0.836±0.223, both P<0.01). The plasma level of uPAR (μg/L) in patients of non-survival group was obviously higher compared with survival group on 1, 3, 5 and 7 days (1 day: 5.301±1.410 vs. 3.888±1.015, 3 days: 4.017±0.898 vs. 2.994±0.638, 5 days: 5.032±1.238 vs. 2.536±1.017, 7 days: 5.232±1.238 vs. 3.536±1.017, all P<0.01). Correlation analysis showed that there was positive correlation between uPAR level and APACHEII score (r=0.640, P<0.01). Coagulopathy is present in SIRS patients, the plasma levels of uPA and uPAR are high in patients with SIRS, and the increase of uPAR in patients with SIRS indicates a poor prognosis.