Options
2024
Journal Article
Title
Performance of serum biomarkers reflective of different pathogenic processes in systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease
Abstract
Objective:
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the leading cause of mortality in SSc. Novel biomarkers are crucial to improve outcomes in SSc-ILD. We aimed to compare the performance of potential serum biomarkers of SSc-ILD that reflect different pathogenic processes: KL-6 and SP-D (epithelial injury), CCL18 (type 2 immune response), YKL-40 (endothelial injury and matrix remodelling) and MMP-7 (ECM remodelling).
Methods:
Baseline and follow-up serum samples from 225 SSc patients were analysed by ELISA. Progressive ILD was defined according to the 2022-ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines. Linear mixed models and random forest models were used for statistical analyses.
Results:
Serum levels of KL-6 [MD 35.67 (95% CI 22.44-48.89, P < 0.01)], SP-D [81.13 (28.46-133.79, P < 0.01)], CCL18 [17.07 (6.36-27.77, P < 0.01)], YKL-40 [22.81 (7.19-38.44, P < 0.01)] and MMP-7 [2.84 (0.88-4.80, P < 0.01)] were independently associated with the presence of SSc-ILD. A machine-learning model including all candidates classified patients with or without ILD with an accuracy of 85%. The combination of KL-6 and SP-D was associated with the presence [0.77 (0.53-1.00, P’ <0.01)] and previous progression of SSc-ILD [OR 1.28 (1.01–1.61, P’ =0.047)]. Higher baseline levels of KL-6 [OR 3.70 (1.52-9.03, P < 0.01)] or SP-D [OR 2.00 (1.06-3.78, P = 0.03)] increased the odds of future SSc-ILD progression, independent of other conventional risk factors, and the combination of KL-6 and SP-D [1.109 (0.665-1.554, P < 0.01)] showed improved performance compared with KL-6 and SP-D alone.
Conclusion:
All candidates performed well as diagnostic biomarkers for SSc-ILD. The combination of KL-6 and SP-D might serve as biomarker for the identification of SSc patients at risk of ILD progression.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the leading cause of mortality in SSc. Novel biomarkers are crucial to improve outcomes in SSc-ILD. We aimed to compare the performance of potential serum biomarkers of SSc-ILD that reflect different pathogenic processes: KL-6 and SP-D (epithelial injury), CCL18 (type 2 immune response), YKL-40 (endothelial injury and matrix remodelling) and MMP-7 (ECM remodelling).
Methods:
Baseline and follow-up serum samples from 225 SSc patients were analysed by ELISA. Progressive ILD was defined according to the 2022-ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines. Linear mixed models and random forest models were used for statistical analyses.
Results:
Serum levels of KL-6 [MD 35.67 (95% CI 22.44-48.89, P < 0.01)], SP-D [81.13 (28.46-133.79, P < 0.01)], CCL18 [17.07 (6.36-27.77, P < 0.01)], YKL-40 [22.81 (7.19-38.44, P < 0.01)] and MMP-7 [2.84 (0.88-4.80, P < 0.01)] were independently associated with the presence of SSc-ILD. A machine-learning model including all candidates classified patients with or without ILD with an accuracy of 85%. The combination of KL-6 and SP-D was associated with the presence [0.77 (0.53-1.00, P’ <0.01)] and previous progression of SSc-ILD [OR 1.28 (1.01–1.61, P’ =0.047)]. Higher baseline levels of KL-6 [OR 3.70 (1.52-9.03, P < 0.01)] or SP-D [OR 2.00 (1.06-3.78, P = 0.03)] increased the odds of future SSc-ILD progression, independent of other conventional risk factors, and the combination of KL-6 and SP-D [1.109 (0.665-1.554, P < 0.01)] showed improved performance compared with KL-6 and SP-D alone.
Conclusion:
All candidates performed well as diagnostic biomarkers for SSc-ILD. The combination of KL-6 and SP-D might serve as biomarker for the identification of SSc patients at risk of ILD progression.
Author(s)