RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Application of Urinary Peptide-Biomarkers in Trauma Patients as a Predictive Tool for Prognostic Assessment, Treatment Interventions, and Intervention Timing: Prospective Nonrandomized Pilot Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.07.24.24310868
DO 10.1101/2024.07.24.24310868
A1 Aktas, Gökmen
A1 Keller, Felix
A1 Siwy, Justyna
A1 Latosinska, Agnieszka
A1 Mischak, Harald
A1 Mayor, Jorge
A1 Clausen, Jan
A1 Wilhelmi, Michaela
A1 Brauckmann, Vesta
A1 Sehmisch, Stephan
A1 Omar Pacha, Tarek
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/24/2024.07.24.24310868.abstract
AB Background Treatment of severely injured patients represents a major challenge, in part due to the unpredictable risk of major adverse events, including death. Preemptive personalized treatment aimed at preventing these events is a key objective of patient management; however, the currently available scoring systems provide only moderate guidance. Molecular biomarkers from proteomics/peptidomics studies hold promise for improving the current situation, ultimately enabling precision medicine based on individual molecular profiles.Methods To test the hypothesis that proteomics biomarkers could predict patient outcomes in severely injured patients, we initiated a pilot study involving consecutive urine sampling (on days 0, 2, 5, 10, and 14) and subsequent peptidome analysis using capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry (CE-MS) of 14 severely injured patients and two additional ICU patients. The urine peptidomes of these patients were compared to the urine peptidomes of age- and sex-matched controls. Previously established urinary peptide-based classifiers, CKD274, AKI204, and CoV50, were applied to the obtained peptidome data, and the association of the scores with a combined endpoint (death and/or kidney failure and/or respiratory insufficiency) was investigated.Results CE-MS peptidome analysis identified 281 peptides that were significantly altered in severely injured patients. Consistent upregulation was observed for peptides from A1AT, FETUA, and MYG, while peptides derived from CD99, PIGR and UROM were consistently reduced. Most of the significant peptides were from different collagens, and the majority were reduced in abundance. Two of the predefined peptidomic classifiers, CKD273 and AKI204, showed significant associations with the combined endpoint, which was not observed for the routine scores generally applied in the clinics.Conclusions This prospective pilot study confirmed the hypothesis that urinary peptides provide information on patient outcomes and may guide personalized interventions based on individual molecular changes. The results obtained allow the planning of a well-powered prospective trial investigating the value of urinary peptides in this context in more detail.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Hannover Medical School prior to the start of patient enrollment and data collection. No concerns have been raised (10415_B0_K_2022).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.