Novel concept to guide systolic heart failure medication by repeated biomarker testing-results from TIME-CHF in context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether repeated measurements of a multi-target biomarker panel may help to personalize medical heart failure (HF) therapy to improve outcome in chronic HF. METHODS: This analysis included 499 patients from the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF), aged ≥ 60 years, LVEF ≤ 45%, and NYHA ≥ II, who had repeated clinical visits within 19 months follow-up. The interaction between repeated measurements of biomarkers and treatment effects of loop diuretics, spironolactone, ß-blockers, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors on risk of HF hospitalization or death was investigated in a hypothesis-generating analysis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to account for the correlation between recurrences of events in a patient. RESULTS: One hundred patients (20%) had just one event (HF hospitalization or death) and 87 (17.4%) had at least two events. Loop diuretic up-titration had a beneficial effect for patients with high interleukin-6 (IL6) or high high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) (interaction, P = 0.013 and P = 0.001), whereas the opposite was the case with low hsCRP (interaction, P = 0.013). Higher dosage of loop diuretics was associated with poor outcome in patients with high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) or prealbumin (interaction, P = 0.006 and P = 0.001), but not in those with low levels of these biomarkers. Spironolactone up-titration was associated with lower risk of HF hospitalization or death in patients with high cystatin C (CysC) (interaction, P = 0.021). ß-Blockers up-titration might have a beneficial effect in patients with low soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt) (interaction, P = 0.021). No treatment biomarker interactions were found for RAS inhibition. CONCLUSION: The data of this post hoc analysis suggest that decision-making using repeated biomarker measurements may be very promising in bringing treatment of heart failure to a new level in the context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Clearly, prospective testing is needed before this novel concept can be adopted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org, identifier: ISRCTN43596477.

Novel extracellular matrix biomarkers as predictors of adverse outcome in chronic heart failure: association between biglycan and response to statin therapy in the CORONA trial.

BACKGROUND: The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an important role in left ventricular remodeling and progression of heart failure (HF). Biglycan and mimecan are ECM proteins that are abundantly expressed in cardiac tissue but have not been evaluated as prognostic markers in HF. We investigated their interaction with statin treatment and association with adverse outcome in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association between serum levels of biglycan and mimecan and the primary end point (cardiovascular [CV] death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke), all-cause mortality, CV death, the composite of all-cause mortality/hospitalization for worsening of HF, and the coronary end point was evaluated in 1,390 patients >60 years of age with ischemic systolic HF in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF (CORONA) population, randomly assigned to 10 mg rosuvastatin or placebo. Serum biglycan and mimecan added no prognostic information beyond conventional risk factors, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. However, statin treatment improved all outcomes except CV death in patients with low biglycan levels (ie, lower tertile), even after full multivariable adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Although circulating levels of mimecan and biglycan were of limited predictive value in patients with chronic HF, circulating biglycan could be a useful marker for targeting statin therapy in patients with HF.

Predictive value of endostatin in chronic heart failure patients with poor kidney function.

OBJECTIVES: Increased circulating endostatin levels have been demonstrated in progressive cardiovascular (CV) and renal disorders. We investigated the predictive value of endostatin in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and the association between endostatin and renal function. METHODS: The interaction between serum endostatin, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and predefined endpoints, including the primary endpoint (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke; n = 397), all-cause mortality (n = 410), CV death (n = 335) or the coronary endpoint (n = 317), was evaluated in 1,390 patients >60 years of age with ischemic systolic HF in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF (CORONA) population, who were randomly assigned to 10 mg rosuvastatin or placebo. RESULTS: In the population as a whole, endostatin added no predictive information after full multivariable adjustment including eGFR and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Serum endostatin was strongly correlated with eGFR (r = 0.59, p < 0.001). After full multivariable adjustment, an association between high serum endostatin and increased risk of all-cause mortality and decreased risk of the primary and coronary endpoints was seen in HF patients with impaired and preserved renal function, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endostatin added no predictive information regarding the adverse outcome in patients with chronic systolic HF of ischemic etiology. An increased risk of all-cause mortality was seen in patients with decreased renal function.

Panel of emerging cardiac biomarkers contributes for prognosis rather than diagnosis in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: As complex disease, heart failure is associated with various pathophysiological and biochemical disorders. No single biomarker is able to display all these characteristics. Therefore, we evaluated a multimarker panel together with the biochemical gold-standard NT-proBNP. Part of the panel are markers for angiogenesis (Endostatin, IBP-4, IBP-7, sFlt-1 as antiangiogenetic factors and PLGF as angiogenectic factor), myocyte stress (GDF-15), extracellular matrix remodelling (galectin-3, mimecan and TIMP-1), inflammation (galectin-3) and myocyte injury (hs-TnT). METHODS: All markers (Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany) were assessed in a cohort of 149 patients with chronic heart failure and 84 healthy controls. RESULTS: All markers were positively correlated with ln NT-proBNP (each p < 0.05). Furthermore, they were significantly elevated in patients with chronic heart failure (each p < 0.05). All markers increased significantly with severity of LV dysfunction and severity of New York Heart Association class (each p < 0.05), except for PLGF and Mimecan (each p = NS). With the exception of endostatin, mimecan and PLGF, all other markers were further significant predictors for all-cause mortality in a 3-year follow-up. In a multimarker approach of the five biomarkers with the best performance (NT-proBNP, hs-TnT, TIMP-1, GDF-15 and IBP-4), the event rate was superior to NT-proBNP alone and increased significantly and progressively with the number of elevated biomarkers. CONCLUSION: All emerging markers increased stepwise with the severity of symptoms and LV dysfunction and offer important prognostic information in chronic heart failure, except for PLGF and mimecan. Five biomarkers with different pathophysiological background incorporated additive prognostic value in heart failure. Prognostication in heart failure may be further improved through a multimarker approach.