Why the study?
Does a proteomic risk score improve prediction of 1-year all-cause mortality compared to MAGGIC score and NT-proBNP in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF?
Does a proteomic risk score improve prediction of 1-year all-cause mortality compared to MAGGIC score and NT-proBNP in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF?
Proteomic risk scores provide accurate and dynamic 1-year mortality prognostic estimates for patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, outperforming or matching traditional clinical scores and biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: We derived and validated proteomic risk scores (PRSs) for heart failure (HF) prognosis that provide absolute risk estimates for all-cause mortality within 1 year. METHODS: Plasma samples from individuals with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; ejection fraction <40%; training/validation n=1247/762) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; ejection fraction ≥50%; training/validation n=725/785) from 3 independent studies were run on the SomaScan Assay measuring ≈5000 proteins. Machine learning techniques resulted in unique 17- and 14-protein models for HFrEF and HFpEF that predict 1-year mortality. Discrimination was assessed via C-index and 1-year area under the curve (AUC), and survival curves were visualized. PRSs were also compared with Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) measurements and further assessed for sensitivity to disease progression in longitudinal samples (HFrEF: n=396; 1107 samples; HFpEF: n=175; 350 samples). RESULTS: In validation, the HFpEF PRS performed significantly better ( P ≤0.1) for mortality prediction (C-index, 0.79; AUC, 0.82) than MAGGIC (C-index, 0.71; AUC, 0.74) and NT-proBNP (PRS C-index, 0.76 and AUC, 0.81 versus NT-proBNP C-index, 0.72 and AUC, 0.76). The HFrEF PRS performed comparably to MAGGIC (PRS C-index, 0.76 and AUC, 0.83 versus MAGGIC C-index, 0.75 and AUC, 0.84) but had a significantly better C-Index ( P =0.026) than NT-proBNP (PRS C-index, 0.75 and AUC, 0.78 versus NT-proBNP C-index, 0.73 and AUC, 0.77). PRS included known HF pathophysiology biomarkers (93%) and novel proteins (7%). Longitudinal assessment revealed that HFrEF and HFpEF PRSs were higher and increased more over time in individuals who experienced a fatal event during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PRSs can provide valid, accurate, and dynamic prognostic estimates for patients with HF. This approach has the potential to improve longitudinal monitoring of patients and facilitate personalized care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chadwick et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: