4.5 Article

Adrenomedullin optimises mortality prediction in COPD patients

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 109, Issue 6, Pages 734-742

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.02.013

Keywords

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Biomarker; Mortality determinants

Funding

  1. department of Pulmonology, Medisch Spectrum Twente
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Pulmonary Medicine Clinic, University Hospital Basel
  4. Swiss National Foundation [PP00-P3_128412/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Current multicomponent scores that predict mortality in COPD patients might underestimate the systemic component of COPD. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy of circulating levels of proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) alone or combined with the ADO (Age, Dyspnoea, airflow Obstruction), updated ADO or BOD (Body mass index, airflow Obstruction, Dyspnoea) index to predict all-cause mortality in stable COPD patients. Methods: This study pooled data of 1285 patients from the COMIC and PROMISE-COPD study. Results: Patients with high MR-proADM levels (>= 0.87 nmol/l) had a 2.1 fold higher risk of dying than those with lower levels (p < 0.001). Based on the C-statistic, the ADOA index (ADO plus MR-proADM) (C = 0.72) was the most accurate predictor followed by the BODA (BOD plus MR-proADM) (C = 0.71) and the updated ADOA index (updated ADO plus MR-proADM) (C = 0.70). Adding MR-proADM to ADO and BOD was superior in forecasting 1- and 2-year mortality. The net percentages of persons with events correctly reclassified (NRI+) within respectively 1-year and 2-year was 31% and 20% for ADO, 31% and 20% for updated ADO and 25% and 19% for BOD. The net percentages of persons without events correctly reclassified (NRI-) within respectively 1-year and 2-year was 26% and 27% for ADO, 27% and 28% for updated ADO and 34% and 34% for BOD. Conclusions: Adding MR-proADM increased the predictive power of BOD, ADO and updated ADO index. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available