Kory J Lavine1, Kathleen E Simpson2, Melanie R F Gropler3, Steven E Lipshultz4, James D Wilkinson5, Jeffrey A Towbin6, Steven D Colan7, Charles E Canter8. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Center for Cardiovascular Research, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 2. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical center, Aurora, CO, USA. kathleen.simpson@childrenscolorado.org. 3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical center, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 7. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that pediatric and adult dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) represent distinct diseases. Few diagnostic tools exist for pediatric cardiologists to assess clinical status and prognosis. We hypothesized that pediatric DCM would have a unique biomarker profile compared to adult DCM and controls. METHODS: We utilized a DNA aptamer array (SOMAScan) to compare biomarker profiles between pediatric and adult DCM. We simultaneously measured 1310 plasma proteins and peptides from 39 healthy children (mean age 3 years, interquartile range (IQR) 1-14), 39 ambulatory subjects with pediatric DCM (mean age 2.7 years, IQR 1-13), and 40 ambulatory adults with DCM (mean age 53 years, IQR 46-63). RESULTS: Pediatric and adult DCM patients displayed distinct biomarker profiles, despite similar clinical characteristics. We identified 20 plasma peptides and proteins that were increased in pediatric DCM compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Unbiased multidimensionality reduction analysis suggested previously unrecognized heterogeneity among pediatric DCM subjects. Biomarker profile analysis identified four subgroups of pediatric DCM with distinguishing clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the emerging concept that pediatric and adult DCM are distinct disease entities, signify the need to develop pediatric-specific biomarkers for disease prognostication, and challenge the paradigm that pediatric DCM should be viewed as a single disease. IMPACT: Pediatric and adult DCM patients displayed distinct biomarker profiles, despite similar clinical characteristics and outcomes. Our findings suggest that pediatric DCM may be a heterogeneous disease with various sub-phenotypes, including differing biomarker profiles and clinical findings. These data provide prerequisite information for future prospective studies that validate the identified pediatric DCM biomarkers, address their diagnostic accuracy and prognostic significance, and explore the full extent of heterogeneity amongst pediatric DCM patients.
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that pediatric and adult dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) represent distinct diseases. Few diagnostic tools exist for pediatric cardiologists to assess clinical status and prognosis. We hypothesized that pediatric DCM would have a unique biomarker profile compared to adult DCM and controls. METHODS: We utilized a DNA aptamer array (SOMAScan) to compare biomarker profiles between pediatric and adult DCM. We simultaneously measured 1310 plasma proteins and peptides from 39 healthy children (mean age 3 years, interquartile range (IQR) 1-14), 39 ambulatory subjects with pediatric DCM (mean age 2.7 years, IQR 1-13), and 40 ambulatory adults with DCM (mean age 53 years, IQR 46-63). RESULTS: Pediatric and adult DCM patients displayed distinct biomarker profiles, despite similar clinical characteristics. We identified 20 plasma peptides and proteins that were increased in pediatric DCM compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Unbiased multidimensionality reduction analysis suggested previously unrecognized heterogeneity among pediatric DCM subjects. Biomarker profile analysis identified four subgroups of pediatric DCM with distinguishing clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the emerging concept that pediatric and adult DCM are distinct disease entities, signify the need to develop pediatric-specific biomarkers for disease prognostication, and challenge the paradigm that pediatric DCM should be viewed as a single disease. IMPACT: Pediatric and adult DCM patients displayed distinct biomarker profiles, despite similar clinical characteristics and outcomes. Our findings suggest that pediatric DCM may be a heterogeneous disease with various sub-phenotypes, including differing biomarker profiles and clinical findings. These data provide prerequisite information for future prospective studies that validate the identified pediatric DCM biomarkers, address their diagnostic accuracy and prognostic significance, and explore the full extent of heterogeneity amongst pediatric DCM patients.
Authors: Elfriede Pahl; Lynn A Sleeper; Charles E Canter; Daphne T Hsu; Minmin Lu; Steven A Webber; Steven D Colan; Paul F Kantor; Melanie D Everitt; Jeffrey A Towbin; John L Jefferies; Beth D Kaufman; James D Wilkinson; Steven E Lipshultz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeffrey A Towbin; April M Lowe; Steven D Colan; Lynn A Sleeper; E John Orav; Sarah Clunie; Jane Messere; Gerald F Cox; Paul R Lurie; Daphne Hsu; Charles Canter; James D Wilkinson; Steven E Lipshultz Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-10-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rakesh K Singh; Charles E Canter; Ling Shi; Steven D Colan; Debra A Dodd; Melanie D Everitt; Daphne T Hsu; John L Jefferies; Paul F Kantor; Elfriede Pahl; Joseph W Rossano; Jeffrey A Towbin; James D Wilkinson; Steven E Lipshultz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marco Merlo; Stylianos A Pyxaras; Bruno Pinamonti; Giulia Barbati; Andrea Di Lenarda; Gianfranco Sinagra Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lars Køber; Jens J Thune; Jens C Nielsen; Jens Haarbo; Lars Videbæk; Eva Korup; Gunnar Jensen; Per Hildebrandt; Flemming H Steffensen; Niels E Bruun; Hans Eiskjær; Axel Brandes; Anna M Thøgersen; Finn Gustafsson; Kenneth Egstrup; Regitze Videbæk; Christian Hassager; Jesper H Svendsen; Dan E Høfsten; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Steen Pehrson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph W Rossano; Tajinder P Singh; Wida S Cherikh; Daniel C Chambers; Michael O Harhay; Don Hayes; Eileen Hsich; Kiran K Khush; Bruno Meiser; Luciano Potena; Alice E Toll; Aparna Sadavarte; Andreas Zuckermann; Josef Stehlik Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Marco Merlo; Antonio Cannatá; Alice Vitagliano; Elena Zambon; Gerardina Lardieri; Gianfranco Sinagra Journal: Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther Date: 2015-12-14
Authors: Catalina Vasilescu; Tiina H Ojala; Virginia Brilhante; Simo Ojanen; Helena M Hinterding; Eino Palin; Tero-Pekka Alastalo; Juha Koskenvuo; Anita Hiippala; Eero Jokinen; Timo Jahnukainen; Jouko Lohi; Jaana Pihkala; Tiina A Tyni; Christopher J Carroll; Anu Suomalainen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 24.094