Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A systematic review with meta-analysis of biomarkers for detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension

A. Josien Smits, Liza Botros, Marijke A.E. Mol, Kirsten A. Ziesemer, Martin R. Wilkins, Anton Vonk Noordegraaf, Harm Jan Bogaard, Jurjan Aman
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00009-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00009-2022
A. Josien Smits
1Dept of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Josien Smits
Liza Botros
1Dept of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marijke A.E. Mol
2University Library UBVU, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kirsten A. Ziesemer
2University Library UBVU, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin R. Wilkins
3National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anton Vonk Noordegraaf
1Dept of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anton Vonk Noordegraaf
Harm Jan Bogaard
1Dept of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hj.bogaard@amsterdamumc.nl
Jurjan Aman
1Dept of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Rationale The blood is a rich source of potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of idiopathic and hereditary pulmonary arterial hypertension (iPAH and hPAH, referred to as “PAH”). While a lot of biomarkers have been identified for PAH, the clinical utility of these biomarkers often remains unclear. Here, we performed an unbiased meta-analysis of published biomarkers to identify biomarkers with the highest performance for detection of PAH.

Methods A literature search (in PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and Wiley/Cochrane Library) was performed up to 28 January 2021. Primary end points were blood biomarker levels in PAH versus asymptomatic controls or patients suspected of pulmonary hypertension (PH) with proven normal haemodynamic profiles.

Results 149 articles were identified by the literature search. Meta-analysis of 26 biomarkers yielded 17 biomarkers that were differentially expressed in PAH and non-PH control subjects. Red cell distribution width, low density lipid-cholesterol, d-dimer, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic protein (NT-proBNP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and uric acid were biomarkers with the largest observed differences, largest sample sizes and a low risk of publication bias. Receiver operating characteristic curves and sensitivity/specificity analyses demonstrated that NT-proBNP had a high sensitivity, but low specificity for PAH. For the other biomarkers, insufficient data on diagnostic accuracy with receiver operating characteristic curves were available for meta-analysis.

Conclusion This meta-analysis validates NT-proBNP as a biomarker with high sensitivity for PAH, albeit with low specificity. The majority of biomarkers evaluated in this meta-analysis lacked either external validation or data on diagnostic accuracy. Further validation studies are required as well as studies that test combinations of biomarkers to improve specificity.

Abstract

Meta-analysis of 26 biomarkers yielded 17 differentially expressed biomarkers in PAH. NT-proBNP had the highest diagnostic accuracy but had a low specificity for PAH. Other markers, including IL-6, RDW, LDL-c, D-dimer and UA, lacked clinical validation. https://bit.ly/3J4YAyC

Introduction

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a cardiovascular condition in which progressive occlusive remodelling leads to increased pulmonary vascular resistance and ultimately right ventricular failure. PAH can be hereditary (hPAH) or idiopathic (iPAH) after exclusion of significant comorbidity [1], referred to as “PAH” throughout this study. The diagnosis of PAH is a complex, specialist process, attributing to a mean time to diagnosis of 17–24 months [2]. Availability of noninvasive biomarkers for faster diagnosis and initiation of treatment prior to the development of right heart failure may improve survival and quality of life [3].

Until now, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic protein (NT-proBNP) remains the most useful clinical marker of myocardial strain and is employed for risk stratification of patients in guidelines and clinical practice [1]. However, improved understanding of the pathways leading to PAH, which include endothelial dysfunction, immunity and altered cellular metabolism, may result in the emergence of novel biomarkers that can detect proliferation and occlusive remodelling of the vascular wall with higher specificity. With the ongoing interest to develop biomarkers that help noninvasive diagnosis of PAH, new biomarkers have been proposed. Yet, many of these biomarkers lack external validation, leaving the performance of these biomarkers – in terms of reproducibility and clinical utility – unclear. We used unbiased meta-analysis to identify biomarkers with robust sensitivity and specificity to detect PAH.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on published biomarkers of PAH in blood or urine. Here we show: 1) biomarkers differentially expressed in iPAH and hPAH compared to non-pulmonary hypertension (PH) controls; and 2) available evidence supporting the suitability of these biomarkers for clinical implementation, including calculation of diagnostic accuracy employing receiver operating curve analyses.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

The conduct and reporting of this review adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-statement (www.prismastatement.org) [4] and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020215820).

Four bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and Wiley/Cochrane Library) were searched for relevant literature from inception to 28 January 2021. Searches were constructed in collaboration with a medical information specialist (K.A.Z.). Search terms including synonyms, closely related words and keywords were used as index terms or free-text words. The searches contained no methodological search filter, date or language restrictions that would limit results to specific study designs, date or language (detailed search; supplementary table S1). Duplicate articles were excluded using Endnote (X9.3.3), Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication-method and Bramer-method [5]).

Two reviewers (A.J.S. and L.B.) independently screened all potentially relevant titles and abstracts for eligibility using Rayyan. If necessary, the full text article was checked for the eligibility criteria. Differences in judgement were resolved through: 1) discussion among reviewers (A.J.S. and L.B.); 2) arbitration of a third reviewer (J.A.); or 3) contacting the author. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1) analysis of potential blood and urine biomarkers in any form, including growth factors, inflammatory mediators, circulating cells, protein, (micro)RNA, or microvesicles; and 2) involved group 1 PAH, provided that iPAH or hPAH patients were included. The following studies were excluded: 1) animal studies; 2) studies involving subjects <18 years of age; 3) studies that did not report biomarker levels for group 1 PAH, or lacked inclusion of iPAH or hPAH patients; 3) studies that lacked a control group, or included a control group suspected of PH without measurement of haemodynamics; and 4) certain publication types: editorials, letters, legal cases, interviews, etc. The full text of the selected articles was obtained for further review and data extraction. In a minority of articles data were estimated from figures. Biomarker levels were conversed to a uniform unit of measurement. Two reviewers (A.J.S. and L.B.) independently evaluated the methodological quality of the full text papers using QUADAS-2 [6]. Articles were scored as low, unclear or high on domains “patients inclusion (P)”, “index test (I)”, “reference test (R)” and “flow and timing (T)” [6]. The risk of bias assessment tool was optimised by A.J.S. and L.B. from a pilot of 10 studies and are presented in supplementary table S2.

A similar search strategy was adopted in identical databases to identify “omics” studies performed in patients with iPAH and hPAH, compared to non-PH control subjects. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1) adopted an “omics” technology, including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, glycomics or lipidomics in blood or urine; and 2) involved patients with group 1 PAH, including iPAH or hPAH. Equal exclusion criteria applied as described above.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from each publication: mean with standard deviation (sd) and the number of patients for each group (PAH versus non-PAH controls), area under the receiving-operating-curve (AUC/ROC), cut-off values, as well as sensitivity and specificity of a given biomarker for the diagnosis of PAH.

Statistics

Primary outcomes were biomarker concentrations in PAH and asymptomatic controls. Meta-analyses were performed when original data (expressed as mean±sd) were available from a minimum of three publications using Review Manager 5.3.5 software (The Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark). A randomised model for continuous data was adopted, due to possible risk of bias. Based on population size, mean and standard deviation, the standardised mean difference, mean difference and odds ratio of biomarker levels in patients with PAH and non-PH controls were calculated. Mean and standardised mean differences are represented as mean with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), or odds ratio with 95% CI. Biomarkers were ranked according to effect size and statistical significance. I2 and Tau2 statistics were performed to assess heterogeneity among studies, and explainable heterogeneity was solved by exclusion of the aberrant publication.

Publication bias was assessed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software V3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) using funnel plots, Egger's regression test (p<0.10), Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill, and Orwin's Fail-safe number-test. The Fail-safe number estimates the number of unpublished studies required to turn the meta-analysis result into a clinically insignificant value. The clinically insignificant value was arbitrarily set at a standardised mean difference of <−0.25 or 0.25.

Selection of biomarkers for clinical implementation

We made a selection of differentially expressed biomarkers based on statistical significance (p<0.05) of the observed difference, sample size and quality of validation outside the discovery cohort by means of calculation of sensitivity and specificity values using ROC analyses in an independent validation cohort. Additionally, we selected for a negligible risk for publication bias, defined by Egger's regression p>0.10, Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill (p<0.05), and a minimum of five publications predicted to bring the result to a clinically insignificant value (standardised mean difference – 0.25, 0.25).

All biomarkers were grouped in six pathobiological domains: haematological, metabolic, coagulation, inflammatory, cardiac and renal. In each domain, we selected one preferred biomarker on the basis of observed difference, sample size, quality of external validation and risk of publication bias (see supplementary table S1).

Results

Inclusion and selection of publications

The literature search yielded a total of 3456 references: 887 in PubMed, 1506 in Embase.com, 976 in Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and 87 in Wiley/Cochrane Library. After removal of duplicates 1356 remained. 1207 full text articles were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (figure 1a). 149 publications remained eligible for data extraction. 45 publications were identified that describe biomarkers meeting criteria for meta-analysis and risk of publication bias assessment. A detailed overview of biomarker origin (whole blood, plasma or serum), location of blood draw (peripheral or central (RHC) blood draw), demographic criteria, treatment and concerns regarding inclusion procedure of these publications is provided in supplementary table S3. Risk of bias, attributable to the procedure of patient selection, index and reference test, as well as timing of the biomarker blood draw (see supplementary table S2), was systematically assessed using QUADAS-2 [6] and is reported in supplementary figure S1.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Flow chart visualising identification of publications, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and selection of publications eligible for meta-analysis. a) Biomarker search; b) omics search. #: excluding conference abstracts; ¶: transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, glycomics and lipidomics. iPAH: idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension; hPAH: hereditary pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Exclusion of urine and non-protein blood biomarkers

In several publications, biomarker expression was studied on circulating platelets [7, 8], immune cells [9–12] and progenitor cells [13–16]. Heterogeneity in measurement methods, characterisation and flow cytometry (FACS) gating precluded meta-analysis of these publications.

Three publications reported on different types of extracellular vesicles as biomarker [17, 18] and three on different types of miRNA as biomarker [19–22]. A single publication reported on a urine biomarker [23]. These publications did not meet the criteria for meta-analysis.

Selection of eligible biomarkers

26 biomarkers were eligible for meta-analysis (table 1). A significant difference in expression was detected for 17 biomarkers in six pathobiological domains. In the haematological domain, these were red blood cell distribution width (RDW), platelet distribution width (PDW), mean platelet volume (MPV) and thrombocytes; in the metabolic domain, total cholesterol, low density lipid-cholesterol (LDL-c), triglycerides and fasting glucose. In the coagulation domain, d-dimer was differentially expressed. In the inflammatory domain, interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), C-X-C motif chemokine ligand-10 (CXCL-10) and tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP1) were differentially expressed. In the cardiac domain, NT-proBNP, and in the renal domain, uric acid (UA) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were differentially expressed. Biomarkers described in fewer than three publications or as median with IQR are summarised in supplementary tables S4 and S5. Selected biomarkers are shown in figure 2 (see Materials and methods). These include RDW, LDL-c, d-dimer, IL-6, NT-proBNP and UA. Forest plots for PDW, MPV, thrombocytes, total cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, CRP, sVCAM-1, CXCL-10, TIMP1 and BUN are provided in the supplementary material (supplementary figures S2–7, supplementary table S6).

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Forest plots of selected biomarkers. a) The haemtological biomarker RDW: red cell distribution width; b) the metabolic biomarker LDL-c: low density lipid-cholesterol; c) the coagulation biomarker d-dimer; d) the inflammatory biomarker IL-6: interleukin-6; e) the cardiac biomarker NT-proBNP: N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide; f) the renal biomarker UA: uric acid; CVD: cardiovascular disease. Risk of bias (QUADAS-2) – P: patient inclusion; I: index test (biomarker); R: reference standard (diagnosis); T: flow and timing. Publications in bold type represent biomarker levels of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (iPAH) and/or hereditary pulmonary arterial hypertension (hPAH) uniquely.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Summary of 26 meta-analyses

Evaluation of publication bias

Egger's regression analysis revealed a significant association (p<0.10) between effect size and standard error for MPV and thrombocytes. After correction for possible publication bias by Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill, the mean difference between PAH and control groups remained significant. The fail-safe test indicated that a minimum of five publications were required to bring the differences to a clinically trivial value, defined as a standardised mean difference of <−0.25 or 0.25. This suggests that the chance that the observed difference relies on publication bias is small (supplementary table S7). Funnel plots of all meta-analyses are given in supplementary figure S8a–z.

Haematological markers: RDW

All five publications on RDW were eligible for meta-analysis. RDW was determined in treatment-naïve iPAH [24] and PAH [25] patients, and in PAH patients receiving vasodilatory treatment [11, 26]. As a reference, asymptomatic controls [11, 24–26] and patients suspected of PH [26] or common disease controls [24] were included (figure 2a). Meta-analysis confirmed a positive mean difference of 1.67% (95% CI 1.45–1.89, p<0.00001) between PAH and non-PH control (table 1). For RDW no sensitivity, specificity or diagnostic accuracy could be extracted from the original data.

A rise in RDW is predictive for the presence of PH in patients with acute pulmonary embolism [27] or systemic sclerosis [26, 28]. RDW was positively associated with pulmonary artery pressure [11, 24], right atrial pressure [24], pulmonary vascular resistance [24], BNP [26] and NT-proBNP [29], and inversely with 6- min walk distance (6MWD) [24, 26, 29]. Remarkably, in one study RDW performed better than NT-proBNP and IL-6 as prognostic markers in PAH patients [27].

Other markers in the haematological domain are summarised in table 1. PDW was increased with a mean difference of 1.42% (95% CI 0.16–2.67, p<0.00001, supplementary figure S2a), as well as MPV (0.95 fL (95% CI 0.76–1.13, p<0.00001; supplementary figure S2b), while thrombocyte count was decreased by a mean of −23.9×109 cells L−1 (95% CI −38.6– −9.2, p=0.001); supplementary figure S2c). Eligible for meta-analysis but without significant differences were haemoglobin, haematocrit and leukocytes (supplementary figure S2d–f).

Metabolic markers: LDL-c

LDL-c was reported in six publications eligible for meta-analysis and determined in patients with PAH receiving vasodilatory treatment. Asymptomatic controls [11, 30–32] or patients with cardiovascular disease or patients suspected of PH [8] were included as reference (figure 2b). All measurements were performed in blood obtained after >8 h of fasting. LDL-c was lower in patients with PAH, with a mean difference of −15.82 mg dL−1 (95% CI −26.18– −5.46, p<0.00001) (table 1). For LDL-c no sensitivity, specificity or diagnostic accuracy could be extracted from the original data. Decreased insulin sensitivity and altered lipid metabolism in iPAH are a possible consequence of chronic inflammation, malnourishment and alterations in liver function [33, 34]. LDL-c was not related to haemodynamic parameters, NT-proBNP, 6MWD or body mass index. LDL-c was negatively associated with 3-year survival in PAH (hazard ratio 0.18 mmol L−1 (95% CI 0.07–0.47), p<0.01, corrected for statin use) [30]. A similar relationship has been described in chronic heart failure [35, 36].

A lower LDL-c in patients with PAH was accompanied by a lower mean total cholesterol of −17.70 mg dL−1 (95% CI −24.15– −11.26, p<0.00001; supplementary figure S3a) and lower mean triglycerides of −32.56 mg dL−1 (95% CI −54.17– −10.94, p=0.004; supplementary figure S3b). Despite the availability of six publications, no significant difference was found in meta-analyses for high-density lipoprotein (HDL-c) (mean difference −6.15 mg dL−1, 95% CI −2.11–14.40, p=0.13; supplementary figure S3d) or fasting glucose (supplementary figure S3c).

Coagulation markers: D-dimer

From the available markers representing coagulation pathways, meta-analyses could be performed for fibrinogen and d-dimer levels. D-dimer was studied in treatment-naïve iPAH patients [37] and in PAH patients receiving vasodilatory treatment [8, 38], and results were compared to asymptomatic controls (figure 2c). Meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher d-dimer level in patients with PAH compared to asymptomatic controls, with a mean difference of 245.99 ng mL−1 (95% CI 148.55–343.43, p=0.001, table 1), in contrast to fibrinogen (73.75 ng mL−1, 95% CI −2.58–150.08, p=0.09); supplementary figure S4), all consistent with the hypothesis that hypercoagulability and in situ thrombosis may contribute to disease pathobiology in PAH [39].

Inflammatory markers: IL-6

From 10 publications reporting on IL-6, five were eligible for meta-analysis. All studies detected elevated levels of circulating IL-6 in treatment-naïve iPAH [40], or iPAH receiving vasodilatory treatment [27, 41–45] and naïve PAH [46, 47] or PAH patients receiving treatment [48]. Findings were compared to asymptomatic controls (figure 2d). A significant rise in IL-6 levels was observed in PAH compared to non-PH controls (mean difference 5.01 (95% CI 2.06–7.96) pg mL−1, p=0.0005) (table 1).

Il-6 levels were negatively associated with the number of circulating endothelial progenitor cells [41] and were elevated in parallel to several interleukins [44], as well as CXCL-10 [42], monocyte chemoattractive protein-1 (MCP-1) [47, 48], tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) [40, 46–48], placental growth factor (PlGF) [40], soluble vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-1 (sVEGFR-1) [40], VEGF-A [40], VEGF-D [40] and markers related to thrombogenesis [45]. IL-6 was negatively associated with right ventricular function [47] and 6MWD [27, 40], while positively to World Health Organization (WHO) functional class [27], NT-proBNP [27, 40] and mean right atrial pressure [40]. IL-6 levels were predictive for all-cause mortality [27, 44] in PAH. No data on diagnostic accuracy, including ROC and AUC were available for meta-analysis.

Eight publications detected a subtle elevation in CRP levels in PAH [11, 41, 49–57] (supplementary figure S5a), (mean difference 0.74 mg L−1, 95% CI 0.13–1.6, p=0.02) (table 1). However, since only one study was predicted to bring the difference to a clinically insignificant value, the risk of bias is significant. The study of Wang et al. [50] yielded an AUC of 0.51 (p=0.899) with a 85% specificity but low (39%) sensitivity [50], when using a diagnostic cut-off of 2.7 mg L−1 CRP, indicating diagnostic accuracy is low in an external validation cohort consisting of iPAH and asymptomatic controls. CRP is commonly attributed to other cardiovascular or inflammatory disease [58], and these data indicate that an elevated CRP lacks the specificity required for detection of PAH among non-PH controls.

Other inflammatory markers that were eligible for meta-analysis and significantly increased in patients with iPAH compared to non-PH controls included: sVCAM-1 (mean difference of 626.72 ng mL−1, 95% CI 29.38–1224.07, p=0.003; supplementary figure S5b), CXCL-10 (mean difference 99.77 pg mL−1, 95% CI 54.53–145.01, p<0.00001; supplementary figure S5c) and TIMP-1 (mean difference of 15.58 ng mL−1, 95% CI −2.56–33.72, p=0.003; supplementary figure S5d). No significant difference was observed for sP-selectin (supplementary figure S5e). From these markers no sensitivity, specificity or diagnostic accuracy could be extracted from the original data.

Cardiac markers: NT-proBNP

11 publications reporting on NT-proBNP met the inclusion criteria, 10 of which were eligible for meta-analysis. NT-proBNP was measured in treatment-naïve iPAH patients [32, 59–63], as well as in iPAH [50–52, 62–64] and PAH patients receiving vasodilatory treatment [55, 56, 65, 66]. Data were compared to asymptomatic controls [32, 57, 59–63, 66] or subjects suspected of PH [55, 56, 65] (figure 2e). The overall mean difference was 1684 pg mL−1, (95% CI 1035–2330, p<0.00001) (table 1).

Wang et al. [50] determined the diagnostic accuracy of NT-proBNP in patients with iPAH among asymptomatic controls employing a cut-off >89.25 pg mL−1 (AUC 0.87, p<0.0001) with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 78%. Similarly, Malhotra et al. [52] detected PAH patients receiving vasodilatory treatment among asymptomatic controls with an AUC of 0.714. However, with a specificity of 78% [50], NT-proBNP is not suitable for identifying PAH amongst patients with left heart disease.

NT-proBNP was positively associated with markers of disease severity, including right ventricular function, including pulmonary vascular resistance [60, 65], right atrial pressure [60], right ventricular dimensions [59, 61, 66] and exercise tolerance (WHO functional class [51, 60, 65]). NT-proBNP was inversely related to 6MWD [51, 65], cardiac index [60, 65] and mixed venous oxygen concentration [60, 65]. In addition, NT-proBNP decreased significantly after initiation of treatment, in line with decreased pulmonary vascular resistance and is predictive of survival [59, 60, 65]. NT-proBNP was not dependent on the location of blood draw or pulmonary capillary wedge procedure [55].

Renal markers: uric acid

Six publications reporting on UA levels were included in this review, five of which were eligible for meta-analysis. UA levels were measured in treatment-naïve iPAH patients [32, 62, 67], iPAH patients receiving treatment [8, 68] and PAH patients on treatment [54, 69], and compared to asymptomatic controls [8, 32, 54, 62, 67–69] (figure 2f). Meta-analyses detected a significantly higher UA level in PAH compared to control with a mean difference of 1.77 mg dL−1 (95% CI 1.06–2.48, p<0.00001) (table 1).

UA levels in PAH patients were positively associated with right ventricular volume [68], pulmonary vascular resistance [67, 68] and WHO functional class [67, 68], and negatively correlated with cardiac output [67, 68] and mixed venous saturation [68]. UA decreased significantly after initiation of vasodilatory treatment, proportional to the decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance [67, 68]. UA is an independent predictor of 3-year mortality in iPAH [67] and heart failure [70].

BUN was the second renal marker that was analysed. We observed a significant increase of 1.76 mg dL−1 (95% CI 0.51–3.01, p<0.0001; supplementary figure S6a). Creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate were eligible but not significantly altered (supplementary figure S6b–c).

Hepatic markers

In three individual studies reporting on alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in treatment-naïve iPAH patients [62], iPAH patients receiving vasodilatory treatment [49] and treatment-naïve PAH patients [37], no significant difference was observed in our meta-analysis (supplementary figure S7). No other hepatic marker was eligible for meta-analysis.

Omics studies

The omics search strategy generated a total of 643 articles: 148 in PubMed, 309 in Embase.com, 183 in Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and three in Wiley/Cochrane Library. After removal of duplicates, 247 remained (represented in figure 1b). We identified 15 publications that analysed metabolomic [71–80] and proteomic profiles [81–85] in iPAH and PAH patients in plasma [71–76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86] and serum [77, 80, 84, 85, 87]. 14 studies compared signatures to asymptomatic controls, while two studies used common disease controls [72, 74]. Liquid and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry or multiplex assays were the most frequently used methods to detect altered metabolites, proteins or antigens. Targeting component analysis was performed employing a variety of statistical tests (supplementary table S1). Metabolomic studies mainly described glycolytic shift and increased fatty-acid metabolism in patients with PAH, implicating an enhanced glycolytic catabolic state [71, 72–74, 76–79], which Rhodes et al. [72], and He et al. [75] validated in independent cohorts. Proteomic studies describe induced growth factors [82], including erythropoietin [85], hepatic growth factor [82], and inflammatory or immune-response pathways, including complement C4a [81] and several interleukins [85]. Outcomes are summarised in supplementary table S8.

Discussion

Biomarkers may contribute to early noninvasive detection and monitoring of disease. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review with meta-analyses to evaluate the performance of diagnostic blood markers in patients with group 1 PAH. In this meta-analysis, we identified RDW, LDL-c, d-dimer, NT-proBNP, IL-6 and UA as biomarkers with the largest observed difference and sample size. Plasma NT-proBNP levels showed the largest difference between PAH and non-PH controls. Although it has a high sensitivity for PAH, NT-proBNP lacks specificity to distinguish PAH from other heart diseases. For other biomarkers, including IL-6, RDW, LDL-c, d-dimer and UA, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Owing to the lack of clinical validation, none of the newly proposed biomarkers could equal the sensitivity and specificity of NT-proBNP for detection of PAH.

Performance of current biomarkers in PAH diagnosis

Clinical adoption and implementation of new biomarkers is subject to strict performance metrics and involves: 1) an evidence-based relation between a biomarker and disease; 2) statistical quantification of the predictive strength of biomarker level for the presence of disease, by using calculation of clinical sensitivity and specificity or evaluating ROC curves in diagnostic studies; and 3) availability of multiple independent data sources with sufficient sample sizes and power. When considering the first criterion, the current meta-analysis demonstrates that for various biomarkers a consistent and reproducible relation between PAH and biomarker levels can be found. By using a predefined search and selection strategy 26 biomarkers showed differential expression between the PAH and control population, reflecting the various pathophysiological processes (domains) that contribute to PAH. The number of biomarkers identified in this review is limited by the requirement of a minimum of three publications reporting on a given biomarker to perform a meta-analysis. This approach visualises biomarkers that have consistently been shown to relate to PAH (i.e. in at least three studies) but may ignore promising biomarkers that have not been reproduced in other studies. Markers included in less than three studies or expressed as medians were rendered unsuitable for meta-analysis and are depicted in supplementary tables S4 and S5. These markers include serotonin (5-Ht), asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1), BNP, endostatin, endothelin-1 (ET-1), galectin-3 (Gal-3), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), high mobility group box 1 (HMGB-1), IL-8, MCP-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -8 (MMP-2, -8), sodium (Na), PlGF, stem cell factor (SCF), sF-selectin, superoxide dismutase (SOD), sVCAM, transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), angiopoietin-1 receptor-2 (Tie-2), TIMP-4, VEGF and TNF-α (supplementary table S4), and caveolin-1 (CAV-1), HbA1c, IL-12, potassium (K), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), nitric oxide (NO), osteopoietin (OPN), provirus integration site for moloney murine leukaemia virus kinase (Pim-1), selenoprotein-P (Se-p), FGF-2, endoglin (Eng), kynurine (KYN), osteoprotegerin (OPG), N-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFLT), tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), thrombomodulin, tryptophan (TRP) and VEGFR1 (supplementary table S5). More studies focusing on these markers would clarify the relation between these markers and PAH.

With regard to the second criterion, while out of 26 meta-analyses, 17 biomarkers were consistently related to the presence of disease, data on ROC curves and calculation of clinical sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of PAH were only available for NT-proBNP and CRP [50]. Independent validation, preferably in studies including a heterogeneous group of patients and including patients suspected or at risk of developing PAH are needed to clarify diagnostic accuracy, with a focus on providing sensitivity and specificity of a biomarker for disease at relevant and reproducible cut-off values. The latter is an essential step in the identification of biomarkers that may replace invasive diagnostics.

With regard to the third criterion, the drawback of most studies included in this review is a low sample size. The combined sample sizes were largest for NT-proBNP and LDL-c (1152 and 3035, respectively); most other analyses are based on a combined sample size below 450 subjects. Including low sample sizes carries the risk of bias and skewing of data to a selected patient population. This is a general limitation that may be addressed by biobanking, or concurrent analysis of biomarkers in clinical trials. A more systematic approach to biomarker studies may aid authors to increase the number of subjects in biomarker studies

Altogether, our systemic review and meta-analysis reveals a considerable number of biomarkers that were consistently found to be altered in PAH. However, these biomarkers lack the scientific underpinning to replace invasive diagnostics in PAH, either because data on them are lacking or because of a lack of specificity.

Future directions for biomarker development in PAH

Considering the fact that research on single biomarkers has failed to identify a single biomarker with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to foster noninvasive PAH diagnosis, various approaches may be considered to improve noninvasive diagnostics in the future. The first involves combining biomarkers with a strong relation to PAH pathophysiology, which have insufficient diagnostic accuracy on an individual basis, for example, implementing a panel of circulating biomarkers from several domains, weighed by importance to improve biomarker specificity. Based on our meta-analyses, a set of readily available biomarkers may be proposed: a panel including NT-proBNP, IL-6, RDW, UA and LDL-c could potentially be used to score the risk of PAH among clinically similar diseases. A second approach involves combining biomarkers with the strength of noninvasive radiological or haemodynamic measurements. This approach has proven successful in the OPTICS study [88] or DETECT study [89] to exclude iPAH, and in the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Respiratory Journal (ERJ) risk criteria and the REVEAL risk stratification [90] to predict outcome in PAH. A third approach may involve unbiased collection of large data sets, including proteomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics, which measure multiple diagnostic biomarkers representative for multiple disease domains in PAH [91]. A PAH-like signature can be used to distinguish iPAH from other diseases. An example is provided by Rhodes et al. [92], employing a selection of nine proteins derived from plasma proteomics, which accurately predict disease outcome in iPAH patients. We believe collaborative biobanks and concomitant analysis of biomarkers in clinical trials and registries are an efficient step forward to improve translation to a clinical setting. External validation cohorts should include patients suspected of PH, and a thoroughly characterised control cohort that contains clinically similar and common diseases.

Strengths and limitations

This review has certain strengths. First, the search strategy of the current study was designed to cover all diagnostic biomarkers research in PAH thus far, resulting in a database on PAH biomarkers of unanticipated size. Second, the meta-analysis was designed to identify biomarkers with consistent performance over several studies. Although this approach may neglect novel, promising biomarkers to a certain extent, the design guarantees identification of biomarkers that were identified in at least three studies, thereby providing surrogate external validation of the biomarker. Third, we focused on easily accessible blood biomarkers thereby potentially bridging the technical gap towards implementation of diagnostic biomarkers in clinical care.

In addition, this meta-analysis has a number of limitations. The major limitation is the lack of validation and calculation of diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers outside their discovery cohort. This renders the reviewing process of sensitivity and specificity for detection of PAH impossible. Second, the meta-analyses were hampered by the limited number of publications addressing iPAH uniquely. Handling iPAH and hPAH patients together as one group, and extracting data of group 1 PAH as second best, meant inclusion of patients with PAH associated with connective tissue disease, congenital heart disease, and drug or toxin use, which may have introduced bias. Next, due to the limited number of studies, we chose not to exclude publications based on QUADAS-2 risk of bias scores, which may have led to inclusion of unreliable data and may have attributed to heterogeneity. However, correction of the most evident sources of bias (treatment status, diagnosis) indicated that bias was negligible.

Conclusion

This study summarises a large number of biomarker studies performed in PAH during the last three decades. Most of the described studies investigated the performance of one single blood biomarker. We conclude that none of these biomarkers have sufficient diagnostic accuracy to replace invasive diagnostics, as all single biomarkers lacked specificity. Using a combination of multiple biomarkers may improve specificity, and this can be achieved by combining a number of routinely available blood tests as well as via an unbiased omics approach.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material 00009-2022.SUPPLEMENT

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: M.R. Wilkins reports consulting fees from Actelion, MorphogenIX and Novartis, outside the submitted work; and patent (Prognostic biomarker panel derived from discovery science); and a leadership or fiduciary role for the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute (unpaid). H.J. Bogaard reports receiving grants or contracts from Janssen, MSD, and Ferrer, outside the submitted work; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from Janssen and MSD, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: This study was supported by the Netherlands Cardio Vascular Research Initiative: CVON-2017-10 DOLPHIN-GENESIS and CVON-2018-29 PHAEDRA-IMPACT. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received January 7, 2022.
  • Accepted March 4, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Galie N,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Vachiery JL, et al.
    2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: The Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 67–119. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Swinnen K,
    2. Quarck R,
    3. Godinas L, et al.
    Learning from registries in pulmonary arterial hypertension: pitfalls and recommendations. Eur Respir Rev 2019; 28: 190050. doi:10.1183/16000617.0050-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. van de Veerdonk MC,
    2. Kind T,
    3. Marcus JT, et al.
    Progressive right ventricular dysfunction in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension responding to therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 2511–2519. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.068
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Tetzlaff J, et al.
    Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Bramer WM,
    2. Giustini D,
    3. de Jonge GB, et al.
    De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc 2016; 104: 240–243. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Whiting PF,
    2. Rutjes AW,
    3. Westwood ME, et al.
    QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kereveur A,
    2. Callebert J,
    3. Humbert M, et al.
    High plasma serotonin levels in primary pulmonary hypertension. Effect of long-term epoprostenol (prostacyclin) therapy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2000; 20: 2233–2239. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.20.10.2233
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Yaoita N,
    2. Shirakawa R,
    3. Fukumoto Y, et al.
    Platelets are highly activated in patients of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2014; 34: 2486–2494. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304404
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Edwards AL,
    2. Gunningham SP,
    3. Clare GC, et al.
    Professional killer cell deficiencies and decreased survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respirology 2013; 18: 1271–1277. doi:10.1111/resp.12152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sada Y,
    2. Dohi Y,
    3. Uga S, et al.
    Non-suppressive regulatory T cell subset expansion in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Heart Vessels 2016; 31: 1319–1326. doi:10.1007/s00380-015-0727-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Yildiz A,
    2. Kaya H,
    3. Ertas F, et al.
    Association between neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and pulmonary arterial hypertension. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2013; 41: 604–609. doi:10.5543/tkda.2013.13265
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hautefort A,
    2. Girerd B,
    3. Montani D, et al.
    T-helper 17 cell polarization in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Chest 2015; 147: 1610–1620. doi:10.1378/chest.14-1678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Toshner M,
    2. Voswinckel R,
    3. Southwood M, et al.
    Evidence of dysfunction of endothelial progenitors in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180: 780–787. doi:10.1164/rccm.200810-1662OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Smadja DM,
    2. Mauge L,
    3. Sanchez O, et al.
    Distinct patterns of circulating endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2010; 36: 1284–1293. doi:10.1183/09031936.00130809
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Farha S,
    2. Asosingh K,
    3. Xu W, et al.
    Hypoxia-inducible factors in human pulmonary arterial hypertension: a link to the intrinsic myeloid abnormalities. Blood 2011; 117: 3485–3493. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-09-306357
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Foris V,
    2. Kovacs G,
    3. Marsh LM, et al.
    CD133+ cells in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 459–469. doi:10.1183/13993003.01523-2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Visovatti SH,
    2. Hyman MC,
    3. Bouis D, et al.
    Increased CD39 nucleotidase activity on microparticles from patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. PLoS One 2012; 7: e40829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040829
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Khandagale A,
    2. Aberg M,
    3. Wikstrom G, et al.
    Role of extracellular vesicles in pulmonary arterial hypertension: modulation of pulmonary endothelial function and angiogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2020; 40: 2293–2309. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.314152
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Estephan LE,
    2. Genuardi MV,
    3. Kosanovich CM, et al.
    Distinct plasma gradients of microRNA-204 in the pulmonary circulation of patients suffering from WHO Groups I and II pulmonary hypertension. Pulm Circ 2019; 9: 2045894019840646. doi:10.1177/2045894019840646
    OpenUrl
    1. Baptista R,
    2. Marques C,
    3. Catarino S, et al.
    MicroRNA-424(322) as a new marker of disease progression in pulmonary arterial hypertension and its role in right ventricular hypertrophy by targeting SMURF1. Cardiovasc Res 2018; 114: 53–64. doi:10.1093/cvr/cvx187
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Qian Z,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Chen J, et al.
    miR-4632 mediates PDGF-BB-induced proliferation and antiapoptosis of human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells via targeting cJUN. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2017; 313: C380–C391. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00061.2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Yang C, et al.
    LncRNA CASC2 inhibits hypoxia-induced pulmonary artery smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration by regulating the miR-222/ING5 axis. Cell Mol Biol Lett 2020; 25: 21. doi:10.1186/s11658-020-00215-y
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Bogdan M,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Francoual J, et al.
    Urinary cGMP concentrations in severe primary pulmonary hypertension. Thorax 1998; 53: 1059–1062. doi:10.1136/thx.53.12.1059
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Decker I,
    2. Ghosh S,
    3. Comhair SA, et al.
    High levels of zinc-protoporphyrin identify iron metabolic abnormalities in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Clin Transl Sci 2011; 4: 253–258. doi:10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00301.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Yaylali YT,
    2. Kilic-Toprak E,
    3. Ozdemir Y, et al.
    Impaired blood rheology in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Heart Lung Circ 2019; 28: 1067–1073. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2018.07.014
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Petrauskas LA,
    2. Saketkoo LA,
    3. Kazecki T, et al.
    Use of red cell distribution width in a population at high risk for pulmonary hypertension. Respir Med 2019; 150: 131–135. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2019.03.003
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Rhodes CJ,
    2. Wharton J,
    3. Howard LS, et al.
    Red cell distribution width outperforms other potential circulating biomarkers in predicting survival in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Heart 2011; 97: 1054–1060. doi:10.1136/hrt.2011.224857
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Zhao J,
    2. Mo H,
    3. Guo X, et al.
    Red blood cell distribution width as a related factor of pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis. Clin Rheumatol 2018; 37: 979–985. doi:10.1007/s10067-017-3918-9
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Xu S, et al.
    Prognostic impact of red blood cell distribution width in pulmonary hypertension patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e19089. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000019089
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Kopeć G,
    2. Waligóra M,
    3. Tyrka A, et al.
    Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 41650. doi:10.1038/srep41650
    OpenUrl
    1. Varol E,
    2. Uysal BA,
    3. Ozaydin M
    . Platelet indices in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2011; 17: E171–E174. doi:10.1177/1076029610394438
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Wang GF,
    2. Guan LH,
    3. Zhou DX, et al.
    Serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol is significantly associated with the presence and severity of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Adv Ther 2020; 37: 2199–2209. doi:10.1007/s12325-020-01304-2
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Zamanian RT,
    2. Hansmann G,
    3. Snook S, et al.
    Insulin resistance in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2009; 33: 318–324. doi:10.1183/09031936.00000508
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Brunner NW,
    2. Skhiri M,
    3. Fortenko O, et al.
    Impact of insulin resistance on ventricular function in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014; 33: 721–726. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2014.02.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Charach G,
    2. George J,
    3. Roth A, et al.
    Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and outcome in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105: 100–104. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.08.660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Gombos T,
    2. Forhecz Z,
    3. Pozsonyi Z, et al.
    Long-term survival and apolipoprotein a1 level in chronic heart failure: interaction with tumor necrosis factor alpha -308 G/A polymorphism. J Card Fail 2017; 23: 113–120. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2016.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Vrigkou E,
    2. Tsangaris I,
    3. Bonovas S, et al.
    Platelet and coagulation disorders in newly diagnosed patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Platelets 2019; 30: 646–651. doi:10.1080/09537104.2018.1499890
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Can MM,
    2. Tanboga IH,
    3. Demircan HC, et al.
    Enhanced hemostatic indices in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: an observational study. Thromb Res 2010; 126: 280–282. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2010.06.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Herve P,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Sitbon O, et al.
    Pathobiology of pulmonary hypertension. The role of platelets and thrombosis. Clin Chest Med 2001; 22: 451–458. doi:10.1016/S0272-5231(05)70283-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Kylhammar D,
    2. Hesselstrand R,
    3. Nielsen S, et al.
    Angiogenic and inflammatory biomarkers for screening and follow-up in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Scand J Rheumatol 2018; 47: 319–324. doi:10.1080/03009742.2017.1378714
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Diller GP,
    2. van Eijl S,
    3. Okonko DO, et al.
    Circulating endothelial progenitor cells in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome and idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Circulation 2008; 117: 3020–3030. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.769646
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Heresi GA,
    2. Malin SK,
    3. Barnes JW, et al.
    Abnormal glucose metabolism and high-energy expenditure in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 190–199.
    OpenUrl
    1. Itoh T,
    2. Nagaya N,
    3. Ishibashi-Ueda H, et al.
    Increased plasma monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 level in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respirology 2006; 11: 158–163. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2006.00821.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Soon E,
    2. Holmes AM,
    3. Treacy CM, et al.
    Elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines predict survival in idiopathic and familial pulmonary arterial hypertension. Circulation 2010; 122: 920–927. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.933762
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Kopec G,
    2. Moertl D,
    3. Steiner S, et al.
    Markers of thrombogenesis and fibrinolysis and their relation to inflammation and endothelial activation in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. PLoS One 2013; 8: e82628. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082628
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Säleby J,
    2. Bouzina H,
    3. Lundgren J, et al.
    Angiogenic and inflammatory biomarkers in the differentiation of pulmonary hypertension. Scand Cardiovasc J 2017; 51: 261–270. doi:10.1080/14017431.2017.1359419
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Prins KW,
    2. Archer SL,
    3. Pritzker M, et al.
    Interleukin-6 is independently associated with right ventricular function in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018; 37: 376–384. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2017.08.011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Schlosser K,
    2. Taha M,
    3. Deng Y, et al.
    Lack of elevation in plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in common rodent models of pulmonary arterial hypertension: questions of construct validity for human patients. Pulm Circ 2017; 7: 476–485. doi:10.1177/2045893217705878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Gabrielli LA,
    2. Castro PF,
    3. Godoy I, et al.
    Systemic oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction is associated with an attenuated acute vascular response to inhaled prostanoid in pulmonary artery hypertension patients. J Card Fail 2011; 17: 1012–1017. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.08.008
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Wang KY,
    2. Lee MF,
    3. Ho HC, et al.
    Serum Caveolin-1 as a novel biomarker in idiopathic pulmonary artery hypertension. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 173970.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Calvier L,
    2. Legchenko E,
    3. Grimm L, et al.
    Galectin-3 and aldosterone as potential tandem biomarkers in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Heart 2016; 102: 390–396. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308365
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Malhotra R,
    2. Paskin-Flerlage S,
    3. Zamanian RT, et al.
    Circulating angiogenic modulatory factors predict survival and functional class in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2013; 3: 369–380. doi:10.4103/2045-8932.110445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Santos M,
    2. Reis A,
    3. Goncalves F, et al.
    Adiponectin levels are elevated in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Clin Cardiol 2014; 37: 21–25. doi:10.1002/clc.22210
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Suzuki S,
    2. Nakazato K,
    3. Sugimoto K, et al.
    Plasma levels of receptor for advanced glycation end-products and high-mobility Group Box 1 in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Int Heart J 2016; 57: 234–240. doi:10.1536/ihj.15-188
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Fares WH,
    2. Ford HJ,
    3. Ghio AJ, et al.
    Safety and feasibility of obtaining wedged pulmonary artery samples and differential distribution of biomarkers in pulmonary hypertension. Pulm Circ 2012; 2: 477–482. doi:10.4103/2045-8932.105036
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Hennigs JK,
    2. Baumann HJ,
    3. Lüneburg N, et al.
    Fibrinogen plasma concentration is an independent marker of haemodynamic impairment in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 4808. doi:10.1038/srep04808
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Quarck R,
    2. Nawrot T,
    3. Meyns B, et al.
    C-reactive protein: a new predictor of adverse outcome in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 1211–1218. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.038
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Smith CL
    . C-reactive protein and asymmetric dimethylarginine: markers or mediators in cardiovascular disorders? Curr Pharm Des 2007; 13: 1619–1629. doi:10.2174/138161207780831338
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Fijalkowska A,
    2. Kurzyna M,
    3. Torbicki A, et al.
    Serum N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide as a prognostic parameter in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Chest 2006; 129: 1313–1321. doi:10.1378/chest.129.5.1313
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Andreassen AK,
    2. Wergeland R,
    3. Simonsen S, et al.
    N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide as an indicator of disease severity in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic precapillary pulmonary hypertension. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98: 525–529. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.02.061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Yang D,
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Yang Z
    . Ghrelin and its relation with N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide, Endothelin-1 and nitric oxide in patients with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension. Cardiology (Switzerland) 2013; 124: 241–245.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Zhu T,
    2. Luo J,
    3. Wang Y, et al.
    Elevated plasma Pim-1 and its clinical significance in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2019; 46: 752–760. doi:10.1111/1440-1681.13102
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Lu GH,
    2. Gong SG,
    3. Li C, et al.
    Prognostic value of gamma-glutamyltransferase in male patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Front Cardiovasc Med 2020; 7: 580908. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2020.580908
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Renard S,
    2. Paulin R,
    3. Breuils-Bonnet S, et al.
    Pim-1: a new biomarker in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2013; 3: 74–81. doi:10.4103/2045-8932.109917
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Nickel NP,
    2. Lichtinghagen R,
    3. Golpon H, et al.
    Circulating levels of copeptin predict outcome in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respir Res 2013; 14: 130. doi:10.1186/1465-9921-14-130
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Fenster BE,
    2. Lasalvia L,
    3. Schroeder JD, et al.
    Cystatin C: a potential biomarker for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respirology 2014; 19: 583–589. doi:10.1111/resp.12259
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Nagaya N,
    2. Uematsu M,
    3. Satoh T, et al.
    Serum uric acid levels correlate with the severity and the mortality of primary pulmonary hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 160: 487–492. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.160.2.9812078
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Jiang X,
    2. Han ZY,
    3. Wang Y, et al.
    Hemodynamic variables and clinical features correlated with serum uric acid in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Chin Med J (Engl) 2008; 121: 2497–2503. doi:10.1097/00029330-200812020-00006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Jasiewicz M,
    2. Kowal K,
    3. Kowal-Bielecka O, et al.
    Serum levels of CD163 and TWEAK in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Cytokine 2014; 66: 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2013.12.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Huang H,
    2. Huang B,
    3. Li Y, et al.
    Uric acid and risk of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail 2014; 16: 15–24. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft132
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Bujak R,
    2. Mateo J,
    3. Blanco I, et al.
    New biochemical insights into the mechanisms of pulmonary arterial hypertension in humans. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160505
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Rhodes CJ,
    2. Ghataorhe P,
    3. Wharton J, et al.
    Plasma metabolomics implicates modified transfer RNAs and altered bioenergetics in the outcomes of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Circulation 2017; 135: 460–475. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024602
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Sanders JL,
    2. Han Y,
    3. Urbina MF, et al.
    Metabolomics of exercise pulmonary hypertension are intermediate between controls and patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2019; 9: 2045894019882623. doi:10.1177/2045894019882623
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Rafikov R,
    2. Coletta DK,
    3. Mandarino LJ, et al.
    Pulmonary arterial hypertension induces a distinct signature of circulating metabolites. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 217. doi:10.3390/jcm9010217
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. He YY,
    2. Yan Y,
    3. Jiang X, et al.
    Spermine promotes pulmonary vascular remodelling and its synthase is a therapeutic target for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2000522. doi:10.1183/13993003.00522-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Hemnes AR,
    2. Luther JM,
    3. Rhodes CJ, et al.
    Human PAH is characterized by a pattern of lipid-related insulin resistance. JCI Insight 2019; 4: e123611. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.123611
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Chen C,
    2. Luo F,
    3. Wu P, et al.
    Metabolomics reveals metabolite changes of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension in China. J Cell Mol Med 2020; 24: 2484–2496. doi:10.1111/jcmm.14937
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Heresi GA,
    2. Mey JT,
    3. Bartholomew JR, et al.
    Plasma metabolomic profile in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Pulm Circ 2020; 10: 2045894019890553. doi:10.1177/2045894019890553
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Mey JT,
    2. Hari A,
    3. Axelrod CL, et al.
    Lipids and ketones dominate metabolism at the expense of glucose control in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a hyperglycaemic clamp and metabolomics study. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901700. doi:10.1183/13993003.01700-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Yu M,
    2. Wang XX,
    3. Zhang FR, et al.
    Proteomic analysis of the serum in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2007; 8: 221–227. doi:10.1631/jzus.2007.B0221
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Abdul-Salam VB,
    2. Paul GA,
    3. Ali JO, et al.
    Identification of plasma protein biomarkers associated with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Proteomics 2006; 6: 2286–2294. doi:10.1002/pmic.200500510
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Amsallem M,
    2. Sweatt AJ,
    3. Arthur Ataam J, et al.
    Targeted proteomics of right heart adaptation to pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2021; 57: 2002428. doi:10.1183/13993003.02428-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Al-Naamani N,
    2. Sagliani KD,
    3. Dolnikowski GG, et al.
    Plasma 12- and 15-hydroxyeicosanoids are predictors of survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2016; 6: 224–233. doi:10.1086/686311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Zhang J,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Li N, et al.
    Potential diagnostic biomarkers in serum of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respir Med 2009; 103: 1801–1806. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2009.07.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Karamanian VA,
    2. Harhay M,
    3. Grant GR, et al.
    Erythropoietin upregulation in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2014; 4: 269–279. doi:10.1086/675990
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Bouzina H,
    2. Hesselstrand R,
    3. Radegran G
    . Higher plasma fibroblast growth factor 23 levels are associated with a higher risk profile in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ 2019; 9: 2045894019895446. doi:10.1177/2045894019895446
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Terrier B,
    2. Tamby MC,
    3. Camoin L, et al.
    Identification of target antigens of antifibroblast antibodies in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 177: 1128–1134. doi:10.1164/rccm.200707-1015OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Jansen SMA,
    2. Huis In 't Veld AE,
    3. Jacobs W, et al.
    Noninvasive prediction of elevated wedge pressure in pulmonary hypertension patients without clear signs of left-sided heart disease: external validation of the OPTICS risk score. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9: e015992.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Coghlan JG,
    2. Denton CP,
    3. Grunig E, et al.
    Evidence-based detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension in systemic sclerosis: the DETECT study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 1340–1349. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203301
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Benza RL,
    2. Gomberg-Maitland M,
    3. Elliott CG, et al.
    Predicting survival in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: the REVEAL Risk Score Calculator 2.0 and comparison with ESC/ERS-based risk assessment strategies. Chest 2019; 156: 323–337. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Oldham WM,
    2. Hemnes AR,
    3. Aldred MA, et al.
    NHLBI-CMREF Workshop Report on Pulmonary Vascular Disease Classification: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77: 2040–2052. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.056
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Rhodes CJ,
    2. Wharton J,
    3. Ghataorhe P, et al.
    Plasma proteome analysis in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: an observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 717–726. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30161-3
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A systematic review with meta-analysis of biomarkers for detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A systematic review with meta-analysis of biomarkers for detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension
A. Josien Smits, Liza Botros, Marijke A.E. Mol, Kirsten A. Ziesemer, Martin R. Wilkins, Anton Vonk Noordegraaf, Harm Jan Bogaard, Jurjan Aman
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00009-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00009-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A systematic review with meta-analysis of biomarkers for detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension
A. Josien Smits, Liza Botros, Marijke A.E. Mol, Kirsten A. Ziesemer, Martin R. Wilkins, Anton Vonk Noordegraaf, Harm Jan Bogaard, Jurjan Aman
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00009-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00009-2022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Supplementary material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Pulmonary vascular disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • The “vicious circle” of chronic cough
  • Non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma
  • Ethnic variation in asthma healthcare outcomes
Show more Reviews

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society