Lindsey Aurora1, Edward Peterson2, Hongsheng Gui3, Nicole Zeld3, James McCord1, Yigal Pinto4, Bernard Cook5, Hani N Sabbah1, L Keoki Williams3, James Snider6, David E Lanfear7. 1. Heart and Vascular Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. Center for Individualized and Genomic Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 6. Critical Diagnostics Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. 7. Heart and Vascular Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; Center for Individualized and Genomic Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. Electronic address: dlanfea1@hfhs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) is a powerful marker of prognosis and treatment response in heart failure (HF), however, it is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) which may be cumbersome and costly. A turbidimetric immunoassay (TIA) that can run on common chemistry analyzers could overcome this. We studied a novel TIA for ST2, comparing it to commercial ST2 (ELISA). METHODS: Patients age ≥ 18 years meeting Framingham definition for HF were enrolled in a prospective registry (Oct 2007 - March 2015) at Henry Ford Hospital and donated blood samples. Participants with reduced ejection fraction (<50%) and available plasma samples were included and valid ST2 measurements were obtained on the same sample using both TIA and ELISA (N = 721). The primary endpoint was all cause death. Correlation between the methods was quantified. The association with survival was tested using unadjusted and adjusted (for MAGGIC score and NTproBNP) Cox models and comparing the Area Under the Curve (AUC). RESULTS: The inter-assay Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.77. Nonparametric regression showed no significant proportional difference (slope = 0.97) and a very small systematic difference (3.2 ng/mL). In univariate analyses, both TIA and ELISA ST2 were significant associates of survival with similar effect sizes (HR 4.46 and 3.50, respectively, both p < 0.001). In models adjusted for MAGGIC score, both ST2 remained significant in Cox models and incrementally improved AUC vs. MAGGIC alone (MAGGIC AUC = 0.757; TIA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.786, p = 0.025; ELISA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.793, p = 0.033). In models with both MAGGIC and NTproBNP included, both ST2 still remained significant but did not improve AUC. CONCLUSIONS: A novel TIA method for ST2 quantification correlates highly with ELISA and offers similarly powerful risk-stratification.
BACKGROUND:Suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) is a powerful marker of prognosis and treatment response in heart failure (HF), however, it is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) which may be cumbersome and costly. A turbidimetric immunoassay (TIA) that can run on common chemistry analyzers could overcome this. We studied a novel TIA for ST2, comparing it to commercial ST2 (ELISA). METHODS:Patients age ≥ 18 years meeting Framingham definition for HF were enrolled in a prospective registry (Oct 2007 - March 2015) at Henry Ford Hospital and donated blood samples. Participants with reduced ejection fraction (<50%) and available plasma samples were included and valid ST2 measurements were obtained on the same sample using both TIA and ELISA (N = 721). The primary endpoint was all cause death. Correlation between the methods was quantified. The association with survival was tested using unadjusted and adjusted (for MAGGIC score and NTproBNP) Cox models and comparing the Area Under the Curve (AUC). RESULTS: The inter-assay Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.77. Nonparametric regression showed no significant proportional difference (slope = 0.97) and a very small systematic difference (3.2 ng/mL). In univariate analyses, both TIA and ELISA ST2 were significant associates of survival with similar effect sizes (HR 4.46 and 3.50, respectively, both p < 0.001). In models adjusted for MAGGIC score, both ST2 remained significant in Cox models and incrementally improved AUC vs. MAGGIC alone (MAGGIC AUC = 0.757; TIA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.786, p = 0.025; ELISA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.793, p = 0.033). In models with both MAGGIC and NTproBNP included, both ST2 still remained significant but did not improve AUC. CONCLUSIONS: A novel TIA method for ST2 quantification correlates highly with ELISA and offers similarly powerful risk-stratification.
Authors: Peter K Lindenauer; Denise Remus; Sheila Roman; Michael B Rothberg; Evan M Benjamin; Allen Ma; Dale W Bratzler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Josep Lupón; Germán Cediel; Pedro Moliner; Marta de Antonio; Mar Domingo; Elisabet Zamora; Julio Núñez; Beatriz González; Evelyn Santiago-Vacas; Javier Santesmases; Maria Isabel Troya; Crisanto Díez-Quevedo; Maria Boldó; Jaume Barallat; Antoni Bayes-Genis Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Wayne Rosamond; Katherine Flegal; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan M Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Bret Kissela; Steven Kittner; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Claudia Moy; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Paul Sorlie; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Matt Wilson; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aneta Aleksova; Alessia Paldino; Antonio Paolo Beltrami; Laura Padoan; Massimo Iacoviello; Gianfranco Sinagra; Michele Emdin; Alan S Maisel Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Pietro Scicchitano; Andrea Marzullo; Annarita Santoro; Annapaola Zito; Francesca Cortese; Cristina Galeandro; Andrea Sebastiano Ciccone; Domenico Angiletta; Fabio Manca; Raffaele Pulli; Eliano Pio Navarese; Paul A Gurbel; Marco Matteo Ciccone Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 4.964