Key result
Non-coding RNAs offer adjunctive heart failure biomarker value but remain unready for routine clinical use.
Why the study?
Interpretation of established HF biomarkers BNP and NT-proBNP is influenced by confounding factors, prompting investigation of non-coding RNAs as complementary biomarkers in heart failure.
Are non-coding RNAs valid and ready for clinical implementation as biomarkers in heart failure?
Systematic Review
Are non-coding RNAs valid and ready for clinical implementation as biomarkers in heart failure?
Non-coding RNAs are not yet ready for routine clinical use in heart failure and will require harmonized analytical workflows and multicenter validation to demonstrate incremental value over established biomarkers.
ncRNAs should not enter routine HF practice; systematic evidence leaves open their incremental value pending harmonized validation.
Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome that has pathophysiologic manifestations of hemodynamic abnormalities, downstream neurohumoral activation and inflammation, myocardial fibrosis, metabolic dysfunction, and cardiomyocyte injury. Relevant to the issue of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as clinically established biomarkers, their interpretation may be influenced by confounding factors such as obesity, renal dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, and HF phenotype. Recent data highlight a broad spectrum of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) types, including microRNAs (miRNAs), long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), and circular RNAs (circRNAs), which can be detected in circulating samples and participate in regulatory networks associated with myocardial remodeling, supporting their investigation as potential complementary biomarkers. A structured literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from database inception to August 6, 2026, was conducted according to predefined eligibility, study-selection, and evidence-appraisal criteria. Here, HF-associated ncRNAs are assessed from perspectives including biological relevance, pre-analytical variables, detection platforms, quality control (QC), analytical and clinical validation, clinical-use scenarios, and implementation pathways. The available evidence so far rather supports a role in which ncRNAs serve as adjunctive rather than stand-alone biomarkers. The field is highlighted by the fact that presently no ncRNA-based assay is ready for routine clinical use in HF. Harmonized pre-analytical and analytical workflows, independent multicenter validation, predefined clinical-use scenarios, as well as demonstration of incremental clinical value and cost-effectiveness beyond established biomarkers, imaging, and clinical variables will be needed for future progress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure. Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) as biomarkers vs. Established biomarkers (BNP, NT-proBNP) was evaluated. Non-coding RNAs currently serve as adjunctive rather than stand-alone biomarkers for heart failure, with no ncRNA-based assay ready for routine clinical use.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: