Are the results from a multiplex proteomic assay and a conventional immunoassay for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 comparable?
Emma Skau1,2, Philippe Wagner3, Jerzy Leppert3
1Centre for Clinical Research, Västmanland County Hospital, Uppsala University, SE-72 189, Västerås, Sweden. emma.skau@outlook.se.
Background:
We aimed to compare absolute plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) obtained by a conventional immunoassay with the corresponding relative concentrations from a proximity extension assay (PEA) and compare the prognostic impact of the protein levels obtained from these assays.
Methods:
We evaluated 437 patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and a population-based cohort of 643 individuals without PAD. Correlations were calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (rho). The discriminatory accuracy of the protein levels to predict future cardiovascular events was analyzed with Cox regression and presented as time-dependent areas under the receiver-operator-characteristic curves (tdAUCs).
Results:
For NT-proBNP, the two assays correlated with rho 0.93 and 0.93 in the respective cohort. The PEA values leveled off at higher values in both cohorts. The corresponding correlations for GDF-15 were 0.91 and 0.89. At 5 years follow-up, the tdAUCs in the patient cohort were similar for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 regardless of assay used (0.65-0.66). The corresponding tdAUCs in the population-based cohort were between 0.72 and 0.77.
Conclusion:
Except for the highest levels of NT-proBNP, we suggest that PEA data for NT-proBNP and GDF-15 reliably reflects absolute plasma levels and contains similar prognostic information.
