Circulating ECM proteins decorin and alpha-L-iduronidase differentiate ATTRwt-CM from ATTRwt-negative HFpEF/HFmrEF
Cardiovascular Research, 2024
Tubben A., Markousis-Mavrogenis G., Meems L., van Essen B., Baumhove L., Berends M., Tingen H., Bijzet J., Hazenberg B., Voors A., van Veldhuisen D., Slart R., Nienhuis H., van der Meer P.
Disease area | Application area | Sample type | Products |
---|---|---|---|
CVD | Patient Stratification | Serum | Olink Target 96 |
Abstract
Aims
Wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTRwt-CM) is an under-recognized aetiology of heart failure (HF), necessitating early detection for timely treatment. Our study aimed to differentiate patients with ATTRwt-CM from ATTRwt-negative HFpEF/HFmrEF patients by identifying and validating circulating protein biomarkers. In addition, we measured the same biomarkers in patients with cardiomyopathy due to light chain amyloidosis (AL)-CM to gain disease-specific insights.
Methods and results
In this observational study, serum concentrations of 363 protein biomarkers were measured in a discovery cohort consisting of 73 ATTRwt-CM, 55 AL-CM, and 59 ATTRwt-negative HFpEF/HFmrEF patients, using multiplex proximity extension assays. Sparse partial least squares analyses showed overlapping ATTRwt-CM and AL-CM biomarker profiles with clear visual differentiation from ATTRwt-negative patients. Pathway analyses with g:Profiler revealed significantly up-regulated proteoglycans (PG) and cell adhesion pathways in both ATTRwt-CM and AL-CM. Penalized regression analysis revealed that the proteoglycan decorin (DCN), lysosomal hydrolase alpha-L-iduronidase (IDUA) and glycosyl hydrolase galactosidase β-1 (GLB-1) most effectively distinguished ATTRwt-CM from ATTRwt-negative patients (R2 = 0.71). In a prospective validation cohort of 35 ATTRwt-CM patients and 25 ATTRwt-negative patients, DCN and IDUA significantly predicted ATTRwt-CM in the initial analysis (DCN: OR 3.3, IDUA: OR 0.4). While DCN remained significant after correcting for echocardiographic parameters, IDUA did not. DCN showed moderate discriminative ability (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61–0.87; sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.52) as did IDUA (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65–0.91; sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.61). A model combining clinical factors (AUC 0.92) outperformed DCN but not IDUA, a combination of the biomarkers was not significantly better. Neither DCN nor IDUA correlated with established disease markers.
Conclusion
ATTRwt-CM has a distinctly different biomarker profile compared with HFpEF/HFmrEF, while ATTRwt-CM patients share a similar biomarker profile with AL-CM patients characterized by up-regulation of proteoglycans and cell-adhesion pathways. The biomarkers DCN and IDUA show the potential to serve as an initial screening tool for ATTTRwt-CM. Further research is needed to determine the clinical usefulness of these and other extracellular matrix components in identifying ATTRwt-CM.