Key result
Increased glycosylation interferes with NT-proBNP measurement, explaining divergent BNP and NT-proBNP levels on sacubitril/valsartan.
Why the study?
In patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan, BNP remains stable while NT-proBNP decreases, and existing immunoassays have limited specificity due to cross-reactivity.
What molecular species contribute to BNP and NT-proBNP immunoreactivities in heart failure patients, particularly those treated with sacubitril/valsartan?
Observational (n=529)
What molecular species contribute to BNP and NT-proBNP immunoreactivities in heart failure patients, particularly those treated with sacubitril/valsartan?
Glycosylation at serine 44 interferes with NT-proBNP immunoassays, explaining why NT-proBNP levels decrease while BNP levels remain stable in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan.
NT-proBNP levels may underestimate true concentrations on sacubitril/valsartan; hypothesis-generating for assay-specific biomarker monitoring in heart failure.
BACKGROUND: Elevated BNP and the N-terminal fragment of the proBNP (NT-proBNP) are hallmarks of heart failure (HF). Generally, both biomarkers parallel each other. In patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan, BNP remained stable while NT-proBNP decreased. As BNP and NT-proBNP assays have limited specificity due to cross-reactivity, we quantified by mass spectrometry (MS) the contributing molecular species. METHODS: We included 356 healthy volunteers, 100 patients with acute dyspnoea (49 acute decompensated HF; 51 dyspnoea of non-cardiac origin), and 73 patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction treated with sacubitril/valsartan. BNP and NT-proBNP immunoreactivities (BNPir and NT-proBNPir) were measured by immunoassays (Abbott ARCHITECT and Roche Diagnostics proBNPII) and proBNP-derived peptides and glycosylation at serine 44 by MS on plasma samples. RESULTS: BNPir corresponded to the sum of proBNP1-108, BNP1-32, BNP3-32, and BNP5-32 (R2 = 0.9995), while NT-proBNPir corresponded to proBNP1-108 and NT-proBNP1-76 not glycosylated at serine 44 (R2 = 0.992). NT-proBNPir was better correlated (R2 = 0.9597) than BNPir (R2 = 0.7643) with proBNP signal peptide (a surrogate of proBNP production). In patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan, non-glycosylated NT-proBNP1-76 remained constant (P = 0.84) despite an increase in NT-proBNP1-76 and its glycosylation (P < 0.0001). ProBNP1-108 remained constant (P = 0.12) while its glycosylation increased (P < 0.0001), resulting in a decrease in non-glycosylated proBNP1-108 (P < 0.0001), and in NT-proBNPir. CONCLUSIONS: Glycosylation interfered with NT-proBNPir measurement, explaining the discrepant evolution of these 2 biomarkers in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan. Both BNPir and NT-proBNPir are surrogates of proBNP1-108 production, NT-proBNPir being more robust in the clinical contexts studied.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nougue et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure and acute dyspnea (n=529). Sacubitril/valsartan was evaluated on Correlation of BNP and NT-proBNP immunoreactivities with proBNP-derived peptides and glycosylation at serine 44. Glycosylation interfered with NT-proBNPir measurement, explaining the discrepant evolution of BNP and NT-proBNP in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (P<0.0001 for increased glycosylation).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: