Robert H Christenson1, Kristin Mullins2, Show-Hong Duh2. 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, 685 West Baltimore Street, MSTF Room 2-54, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: rchristenson@umm.edu. 2. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, 685 West Baltimore Street, MSTF Room 2-54, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-Sensitivity (hs) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays are categorized by two criteria: (i) cTn values above the limit of detection (LoD) for >50% of male and female healthy cohorts of ≥300 individuals; (ii) imprecision ≤10% total %CV for sex-specific 99th-percentile clinical decision values (CDVs). No documented hs-Tn assay has yet been FDA-cleared. METHODS: The PATHFAST cTnI-II assay's LoD was 2.3 ng/L using CLSI EP-17. The AACC Universal Sample Bank of 847 healthy men (50.6%) and women (49.4%) was used to determine 99th-percentile CDVs with Nonparametric, Harrell-Davis and Robust modeling. Health/Medication questionnaires and Amino-terminal proBNP, Hemoglobin A1c and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate surrogates excluded underlying health conditions. RESULTS: The cTnI-II test's total CV was 6.1% at 29 ng/L and 7.1% at 22 ng/L; the LoD was 2.3 ng/L. Of the full 847-member healthy cohort, 113 (13.3%) were excluded by abnormal surrogate biomarkers. The final 734-member healthy population had the following (% > LoD): overall, 487 (66.3%); women, 186 (52.8%); and men, 301 (78.8%). 99th-percentile CDVs by Nonparametric modeling were: 28 ng/L (90% CI: 20-30), overall final 732-member healthy population; 20 ng/L (90% CI: 13-30), 352 women; and 30 ng/L (90% CI: 21-37), 382 men. Differences between sex-specific CDVs were not significantly different (p > .05) with Nonparametric or Harrell-Davis modeling; however, Robust Modeling did show significance (<0.05), with lower CDVs at 11 ng/L (90% CI: 9-12) and 16 ng/L (90% CI: 15-18) for the female and male cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: cTnI-II is the only FDA-cleared assay that has demonstrated high-sensitivity cTn assay. Use of recommended modeling in >300 healthy subjects for determining sex-specific 99th-percentile CDVs did not show statistically significant differences except with the Robust modeling.
BACKGROUND: High-Sensitivity (hs) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays are categorized by two criteria: (i) cTn values above the limit of detection (LoD) for >50% of male and female healthy cohorts of ≥300 individuals; (ii) imprecision ≤10% total %CV for sex-specific 99th-percentile clinical decision values (CDVs). No documented hs-Tn assay has yet been FDA-cleared. METHODS: The PATHFAST cTnI-II assay's LoD was 2.3 ng/L using CLSI EP-17. The AACC Universal Sample Bank of 847 healthy men (50.6%) and women (49.4%) was used to determine 99th-percentile CDVs with Nonparametric, Harrell-Davis and Robust modeling. Health/Medication questionnaires and Amino-terminal proBNP, Hemoglobin A1c and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate surrogates excluded underlying health conditions. RESULTS: The cTnI-II test's total CV was 6.1% at 29 ng/L and 7.1% at 22 ng/L; the LoD was 2.3 ng/L. Of the full 847-member healthy cohort, 113 (13.3%) were excluded by abnormal surrogate biomarkers. The final 734-member healthy population had the following (% > LoD): overall, 487 (66.3%); women, 186 (52.8%); and men, 301 (78.8%). 99th-percentile CDVs by Nonparametric modeling were: 28 ng/L (90% CI: 20-30), overall final 732-member healthy population; 20 ng/L (90% CI: 13-30), 352 women; and 30 ng/L (90% CI: 21-37), 382 men. Differences between sex-specific CDVs were not significantly different (p > .05) with Nonparametric or Harrell-Davis modeling; however, Robust Modeling did show significance (<0.05), with lower CDVs at 11 ng/L (90% CI: 9-12) and 16 ng/L (90% CI: 15-18) for the female and male cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: cTnI-II is the only FDA-cleared assay that has demonstrated high-sensitivity cTn assay. Use of recommended modeling in >300 healthy subjects for determining sex-specific 99th-percentile CDVs did not show statistically significant differences except with the Robust modeling.
Authors: John W Pickering; Joanna M Young; Peter M George; Antony S Watson; Sally J Aldous; Richard W Troughton; Christopher J Pemberton; A Mark Richards; Louise A Cullen; Martin P Than Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: R H Christenson; W F Peacock; F S Apple; A T Limkakeng; R M Nowak; J McCord; C R deFilippi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2019-02-15
Authors: Joško Osredkar; Katja Krivic; Teja Fabjan; Kristina Kumer; Jure Tršan; Laura Poljančič; Petra Finderle; Hugon Možina Journal: Med Access Point Care Date: 2021-10-26
Authors: David Clemons; Aaron Lee; Saaniya Ajmeri; Vittorio Terrigno; Jordan Zaid; Krystal Hunter; Satyajeet Roy Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Evangelos Giannitsis; Stefan Blankenberg; Robert H Christenson; Norbert Frey; Stephan von Haehling; Christian W Hamm; Kenji Inoue; Hugo A Katus; Chien-Chang Lee; James McCord; Martin Möckel; Jack Tan Wei Chieh; Marco Tubaro; Kai C Wollert; Kurt Huber Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 5.460