Cargando…

Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare absolute plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) obtained by a conventional immunoassay with the corresponding relative concentrations from a proximity extension assay (PEA) and compar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skau, Emma, Wagner, Philippe, Leppert, Jerzy, Ärnlöv, Johan, Hedberg, Pär
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9872369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36694116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-023-09393-1
_version_ 1784877389053952000
author Skau, Emma
Wagner, Philippe
Leppert, Jerzy
Ärnlöv, Johan
Hedberg, Pär
author_facet Skau, Emma
Wagner, Philippe
Leppert, Jerzy
Ärnlöv, Johan
Hedberg, Pär
author_sort Skau, Emma
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare absolute plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) obtained by a conventional immunoassay with the corresponding relative concentrations from a proximity extension assay (PEA) and compare the prognostic impact of the protein levels obtained from these assays. METHODS: We evaluated 437 patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and a population-based cohort of 643 individuals without PAD. Correlations were calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rho). The discriminatory accuracy of the protein levels to predict future cardiovascular events was analyzed with Cox regression and presented as time-dependent areas under the receiver-operator-characteristic curves (tdAUCs). RESULTS: For NT-proBNP, the two assays correlated with rho 0.93 and 0.93 in the respective cohort. The PEA values leveled off at higher values in both cohorts. The corresponding correlations for GDF-15 were 0.91 and 0.89. At 5 years follow-up, the tdAUCs in the patient cohort were similar for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 regardless of assay used (0.65–0.66). The corresponding tdAUCs in the population-based cohort were between 0.72 and 0.77. CONCLUSION: Except for the highest levels of NT-proBNP, we suggest that PEA data for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 reliably reflects absolute plasma levels and contains similar prognostic information.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9872369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98723692023-01-25 Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable? Skau, Emma Wagner, Philippe Leppert, Jerzy Ärnlöv, Johan Hedberg, Pär Clin Proteomics Research BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare absolute plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) obtained by a conventional immunoassay with the corresponding relative concentrations from a proximity extension assay (PEA) and compare the prognostic impact of the protein levels obtained from these assays. METHODS: We evaluated 437 patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and a population-based cohort of 643 individuals without PAD. Correlations were calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rho). The discriminatory accuracy of the protein levels to predict future cardiovascular events was analyzed with Cox regression and presented as time-dependent areas under the receiver-operator-characteristic curves (tdAUCs). RESULTS: For NT-proBNP, the two assays correlated with rho 0.93 and 0.93 in the respective cohort. The PEA values leveled off at higher values in both cohorts. The corresponding correlations for GDF-15 were 0.91 and 0.89. At 5 years follow-up, the tdAUCs in the patient cohort were similar for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 regardless of assay used (0.65–0.66). The corresponding tdAUCs in the population-based cohort were between 0.72 and 0.77. CONCLUSION: Except for the highest levels of NT-proBNP, we suggest that PEA data for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 reliably reflects absolute plasma levels and contains similar prognostic information. BioMed Central 2023-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9872369/ /pubmed/36694116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-023-09393-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Skau, Emma
Wagner, Philippe
Leppert, Jerzy
Ärnlöv, Johan
Hedberg, Pär
Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title_full Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title_fullStr Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title_full_unstemmed Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title_short Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
title_sort are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for nt-probnp and gdf-15 comparable?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9872369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36694116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-023-09393-1
work_keys_str_mv AT skauemma aretheresultsfromamultiplexproteomicassayandaconventionalimmunoassayforntprobnpandgdf15comparable
AT wagnerphilippe aretheresultsfromamultiplexproteomicassayandaconventionalimmunoassayforntprobnpandgdf15comparable
AT leppertjerzy aretheresultsfromamultiplexproteomicassayandaconventionalimmunoassayforntprobnpandgdf15comparable
AT arnlovjohan aretheresultsfromamultiplexproteomicassayandaconventionalimmunoassayforntprobnpandgdf15comparable
AT hedbergpar aretheresultsfromamultiplexproteomicassayandaconventionalimmunoassayforntprobnpandgdf15comparable