Patent Application
20080050832
The present invention relates to the identification and use of diagnostic markers related to sepsis. In a various aspects, the invention relates to methods and compositions for use in assigning a treatment pathway to subjects suffering from SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock and/or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
The following discussion of the background of the invention is merely provided to aid the reader in understanding the invention and is not admitted to describe or constitute prior art to the present invention.
The tern “sepsis” has been used to describe a variety of clinical conditions related to systemic manifestations of inflammation accompanied by an infection. Because of clinical similarities to inflammatory responses secondary to non-infectious etiologies, identifying sepsis has been a particularly challenging diagnostic problem. Recently, the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Society of Critical Care Medicine (Bone et al., Chest 101: 1644-53, 1992) published definitions for “Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome” (or “SIRS”), which refers generally to a severe systemic response to an infectious or non-infectious insult, and for the related syndromes “sepsis,” “severe sepsis,” and “septic shock,” and extending to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (“MODS”). These definitions, described below, are intended for each of these phrases for the purposes of the present application.
“SIRS” refers to a condition that exhibits two or more of the following:
“Sepsis” refers to SIRS, further accompanied by a clinically evident or microbiologically confirmed infection. This infection may be bacterial, fungal, parasitic, or viral.
“Severe sepsis” refers to sepsis, further accompanied by organ hypoperfusion made evident by at least one sign of organ dysfunction such as hypoxemia, oliguria, metabolic acidosis, or altered cerebral function.
“Septic shock” refers to severe sepsis, further accompanied by hypotension, made evident by a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, or the requirement for pharmaceutical intervention to maintain blood pressure.
MODS (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome) is the presence of altered organ function in a patient who is acutely ill such that homeostasis cannot be maintained without intervention. Primary MODS is the direct result of a well-defined insult in which organ dysfunction occurs early and can be directly attributable to the insult itself. Secondary MODS develops as a consequence of a host response and is identified within the context of SIRS.
A systemic inflammatory response leading to a diagnosis of SIRS may be related to both infection and to numerous non-infective etiologies, including burns, pancreatitis, trauma, heat stroke, and neoplasia. While conceptually it may be relatively simple to distinguish between sepsis and non-septic SIRS, no diagnostic tools have been described to unambiguously distinguish these related conditions. See, e.g., Llewelyn and Cohen, Int. Care Med. 27: S10-S32, 2001. For example, because more than 90% of sepsis cases involve bacterial infection, the “gold standard” for confirming infection has been microbial growth from blood, urine, pleural fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, synnovial fluid, sputum, or other tissue specimens. Such culture has been reported, however, to fail to confirm 50% or more of patients exhibiting strong clinical evidence of sepsis. See, e.g., Jaimes et al., Int. Care Med 29: 1368-71, published electronically Jun. 26, 2003.
The physiologic responses leading to the systemic manifestations of inflammation in sepsis remain unclear. Activation of immune cells occurs in response to the LPS endotoxin of gram negative bacteria and exotoxins of gram positive bacteria. This activation leads to a cascade of events mediated by proinflammatory cytokines, adhesion molecules, vasoactive mediators, and reactive oxygen species. Various organs, including the liver, lungs, heart, and kidney are affected directly or indirectly by this cascade. Sepsis is also associated with disseminated intravascular coagulation (“DIC”), mediated presumably by cytokine activation of coagulation. Fluid and electrolyte balance are also affected by increases in capillary perfusion and reduced oxygenation of tissues. Unchecked, the uncontrolled inflammatory response created can lead to ischemia, loss of organ function, and death.
Despite the availability of antibiotics and supportive therapy, sepsis represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. A recent study estimated that 751,000 cases of severe sepsis occur in the United States annually, with a mortality rate of from 30-50%. Angus et al., Crit. Care Med. 29: 1303-10, 2001. Recently, an organization of medical care groups referred to as the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign” issued guidelines for managing subjects suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock. Dellinger et al., Crit. Care Med. 32: 858-873, 2004. These guidelines draw from, amongst other sources, the “Early Goal Directed Therapy” therapy regimen developed by Rivers and colleagues. See, e.g., New Engl. J. Med. 345: 1368-77. 2001.
Several laboratory tests have been investigated or proposed for use, in conjunction with a complete clinical examination of a subject, for the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,639,617 and 6,303,321; Patent publications US2005/0196817, WO2005/048823, WO2004/046181, WO2004/043236, US2005/0164238; and Charpentier et al., Crit. Care Med. 32: 660-65, 2004; Castillo et al., Int. J. Infect. Dis. 8: 271-74, 2004; Chua and Kang-Hoe, Crit. Care 8: R248-R250, 2004; Witthaut et al., int. Care Med. 29: 1696-1702, 2003; Jones and Kline, Ann. Int. Med. 42: 714-15, 2003; Maeder et al., Swiss Med. Wkly. 133: 515-18, 2003; Giamarellos-Bourboulis et al., Intensive Care Med. 28: 1351-56, 2002; Harbarth et al., Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164: 396-402, 2001; Martin et al., Pediatrics 108: (4) e61 1-6, 2001; and Bossink et al., Chest 113: 1533-41, 1998.
The present invention relates to the identification and use of markers for the detection of sepsis, the differentiation of sepsis from other causes of SIRS, and in the stratification of risk in sepsis patients. The methods and compositions of the present invention can be used to facilitate the treatment of patients and the development of additional diagnostic and/or prognostic indicators and therapies.
In various aspects, the invention relates to materials and procedures for identifying markers that may be used to direct therapy in subjects; to using such markers in treating a patient and/or to monitor the course of a treatment regimen; to using such markers to identify subjects at risk for one or more adverse outcomes related to SIRS; and for screening compounds and pharmaceutical compositions that might provide a benefit in treating or preventing such conditions.
In a first aspect, the invention relates to a method of assigning a prognostic risk of sepsis progression to a subject suffering from SIRS, the method comprising:
The term “sepsis progression” as used herein refers to a risk of whether or not the subject suffers from or will suffer from one or more of the following conditions: a high risk infection, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In preferred embodiments, the prognostic risk of progression to a poor outcome is a near-term risk, most preferably a risk within 72 hours of obtaining one or more samples used in performing the methods described herein. The terms “low risk infection,” and “high risk infection” are defined hereinafter.
Each immunoassay result (meaning an immunoassay result for each of CCL23, NGAL, and C-reactive protein, and any optional additional markers being measured) may be considered individually, or by calculating a single “composite” value that is a function of each of the immunoassay results obtained from the assay method. Typically, relating immunoassay results to a particular clinical endpoint of interest (in this case, a risk of sepsis progression) comprises comparing either each individual immunoassay result, or a single composite value, to a threshold value. For markers that increase as a result of the clinical endpoint, a test value obtained from the subject under study that is greater than the threshold value assigns an increased risk of sepsis progression relative to a risk assigned when the value is less than said threshold value.
The skilled artisan understands that numerous methods may be used to select a threshold value. In certain embodiments, a threshold is obtained by performing the assay method on samples obtained from a population of SIRS patients. That group is followed for the time period of interest (e.g., 72 hours following sample collection), and then divided into two groups: a first group of subjects suffering from SIRS that did not progress to sepsis; and a second group of subjects suffering from SIRS that did progress to sepsis within 72 hours. These are used to establish the “low risk” and “high risk” population values for the markers measured, respectively.
Once these groups are established, one or more thresholds may be selected that provide an acceptable ability to predict risk. In practice, Receiver Operating Characteristic curves, or “ROC” curves, are typically calculated by plotting the value of a variable versus its relative frequency in “low risk” and “high risk” populations. For any particular marker, a distribution of marker levels for subjects with and without a disease will likely overlap. Under such conditions, a test does not absolutely distinguish “low risk” and “high risk” with 100% accuracy, and the area of overlap indicates where the test cannot distinguish “low risk” and “high risk.” A threshold is selected, above which (or below which, depending on how a marker changes with the disease) the test is considered to be “positive” and below which the test is considered to be “negative.” The area under the ROC curve is a measure of the probability that the perceived measurement will allow correct identification of a condition. See, e.g., Hanley et al., Radiology 143: 29-36 (1982).
In certain embodiments, markers and/or marker panels are selected to distinguish “low risk” and “high risk” with at least about 70% sensitivity, more preferably at least about 80% sensitivity, even more preferably at least about 85% sensitivity, still more preferably at least about 90% sensitivity, and most preferably at least about 95% sensitivity, combined with at least about 70% specificity, more preferably at least about 80% specificity, even more preferably at least about 85% specificity, still more preferably at least about 90% specificity, and most preferably at least about 95% specificity. In particularly preferred embodiments, both the sensitivity and specificity are at least about 75%, more preferably at least about 80%, even more preferably at least about 85%, still more preferably at least about 90%, and most preferably at least about 95%. The term “about” in this context refers to ±5% of a given measurement.
In other embodiments, a positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, odds ratio, or hazard ratio is used as a measure of a test's ability to predict risk. In the case of a positive likelihood ratio, a value of 1 indicates that a positive result is equally likely among subjects in both the “low risk” and “high risk” groups; a value greater than 1 indicates that a positive result is more likely in the “high risk” group; and a value less than 1 indicates that a positive result is more likely in the “low risk” group. In the case of a negative likelihood ratio, a value of 1 indicates that a negative result is equally likely among subjects in both the “low risk” and “high risk” groups; a value greater than 1 indicates that a negative result is more likely in the “high risk” group; and a value less than 1 indicates that a negative result is more likely in the “low risk” group. In certain preferred embodiments, markers and/or marker panels are preferably selected to exhibit a positive or negative likelihood ratio of at least about 1.5 or more or about 0.67 or less, more preferably at least about 2 or more or about 0.5 or less, still more preferably at least about 5 or more or about 0.2 or less, even more preferably at least about 10 or more or about 0.1 or less, and most preferably at least about 20 or more or about 0.05 or less. The term “about” in this context refers to ±5% of a given measurement.
In the case of an odds ratio, a value of 1 indicates that a positive result is equally likely among subjects in both the “low risk” and “high risk” groups; a value greater than 1 indicates that a positive result is more likely in the “high risk” group; and a value less than 1 indicates that a positive result is more likely in the “low risk” group. In certain preferred embodiments, markers and/or marker panels are preferably selected to exhibit an odds ratio of at least about 2 or more or about 0.5 or less, more preferably at least about 3 or more or about 0.33 or less, still more preferably at least about 4 or more or about 0.25 or less, even more preferably at least about 5 or more or about 0.2 or less, and most preferably at least about 10 or more or about 0.1 or less. The term “about” in this context refers to ±5% of a given measurement.
In the case of a hazard ratio, a value of 1 indicates that the relative risk is equal in both the “low risk” and “high risk” groups; a value greater than 1 indicates that the risk is greater in the “high risk” group; and a value less than 1 indicates that the risk is greater in the “low risk” group. In certain preferred embodiments, markers and/or marker panels are preferably selected to exhibit a hazard ratio of at least about 1.1 or more or about 0.91 or less, more preferably at least about 1.25 or more or about 0.8 or less, still more preferably at least about 1.5 or more or about 0.67 or less, even more preferably at least about 2 or more or about 0.5 or less, and most preferably at least about 2.5 or more or about 0.4 or less. The term “about” in this context refers to ±5% of a given measurement.
In some cases, multiple thresholds may be determined. This is the case in so-called “tertile,” “quartile,” or “quintile” analyses. In these methods, the “low risk” and “high risk” groups are considered together as a single population, and are divided into 3, 4, or 5 (or more) “bins” having equal numbers of individuals. The boundary between two of these “bins” may be considered “thresholds.” A risk can be assigned based on which “bin” a test subject falls into. An example of such a strategy is described hereinafter.
As described herein, preferred assays are “configured to detect” a particular marker, which means that the assay can generate a detectable signal indicative of the presence or amount of a physiologically relevant concentration of that marker.
The three markers of the present invention (CCL23, NGAL, and C-reactive protein) may be used together with additional markers in additional “panels” for performing the claimed methods. These additional markers are preferably selected from the group consisting of markers related to blood pressure regulation, markers related to coagulation and hemostasis, markers related to apoptosis, and/or markers related to inflammation.
In a related aspect, the invention relates to devices to perform one or more of the methods described herein. Such devices preferably contain a plurality of diagnostic zones, each of which is related to a particular marker of interest. Such diagnostic zones are preferably discrete locations within a single assay device. Such devices may be referred to as “arrays” or “microarrays.” Following reaction of a sample with the devices, a signal is generated from the diagnostic zone(s), which may then be correlated to the presence or amount of the markers of interest. Numerous suitable devices are known to those of skill in the art.
The present invention relates to methods and compositions for symptom-based differential diagnosis, prognosis, and determination of treatment regimens in subjects. In particular, the invention relates to methods and compositions selected to rule in or out SIRS, or for differentiating sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, and/or MODS from each other and/or from non-infectious SIRS.
Patients presenting for medical treatment often exhibit one or a few primary observable changes in bodily characteristics or functions that are indicative of disease. Often, these “symptoms” are nonspecific, in that a number of potential diseases can present the same observable symptom or symptoms. In the case of SIRS, the condition exists, by definition, whenever two or more of the following symptoms are present:
The present invention describes methods and compositions that can assist in the differential diagnosis of one or more nonspecific symptoms by providing diagnostic markers that are designed to rule in or out one, and preferably a plurality, of possible etiologies for the observed symptoms. Symptom-based differential diagnosis described herein can be achieved using panels of diagnostic markers designed to distinguish between possible diseases that underlie a nonspecific symptom observed in a patient.
Definitions
The term “CCL23” as used herein refers to a mature polypeptide formed by removal of the signal sequence from the polypeptide described in Swiss-Prot accession number P55773-1 or its non-human homologue. Human CCL23 has the following sequence:
A CCL23 splice variant, which is a longer variant of CCL23 in which R46 is replaced by MLWRRKIGPQMTLSHAAG (SEQ ID NO:2) is also known in the art. In the case of both CCL23 splice variant and CCL23, the putative secretory signal sequence is represented by residues 1-21, which are presumably lacking from the mature secreted form of each protein. In addition, N-terminal processed forms of CCL23, including CCL2319-99, CCL2322-99, CCL2327-99, and CCL2330-99, have been reported to be found in high levels in synovial fluids from rheumatoid patients.
Preferred assays are “configured to detect” a particular marker, in this case CCL23. Because an antibody epitope is on the order of 8 amino acids, an immunoassay will detect other polypeptides (e.g., related markers) so long as the other polypeptides contain the epitope(s) necessary to bind to the antibody used in the assay. Such other polypeptides are referred to as being “immunologically detectable” in the assay, and would include various isoforms. That an assay is “configured to detect” a marker means that an assay can generate a detectable signal indicative of the presence or amount of a physiologically relevant concentration of a particular marker of interest. Such an assay may, but need not, specifically detect a particular marker (i.e., detect a marker but not some or all related markers). Because both CCL23 splice variant and these N-terminal cleavage forms comprise a large number of residues in common, an assay that is configured to detect CCL23 could also detect one or more of these CCL23-related forms. In the alternative, assays may be developed that are specific for one or more forms, in that other forms are not appreciably detected in the assay. While preferred assays detect CCL23, assays that detect CCL23 splice variant and/or CCL2319-99, CCL2322-99, CCL2327-99, and CCL2330-99 but not CCL23 may be used together with or as a substitute for the assays that detect CCL23.
The terms “NGAL” and “Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin” as used herein refer to a mature polypeptide formed by removal of the signal sequence from the polypeptide described in Swiss-Prot accession number P80188 or its non-human homologue. Human NGAL has the following sequence:
The putative secretory signal sequence is represented by residues 1-20, which are presumably lacking from the mature secreted form of the protein. NGAL forms both a homodimer and a covalently linked, disulfide-bridged heterodimer with MMP-9. Assays may be developed that are specific for monomeric NGAL, for dimeric NGAL, for NGAL/MMP-9, or that bind two or more of these forms. While preferred assays that detect NGAL detect NGAL monomer, assays that detect dimeric NGAL and/or NGAL/MMP-9 but not NGAL monomer may be used together with or as a substitute for the assays that detect NGAL monomer.
The terms “CRP” and “C-reactive protein” as used herein refer to a mature polypeptide formed by removal of the signal sequence from the polypeptide described in Swiss-Prot accession number P02741 or its non-human homologue. Human CRP has the following sequence:
The putative secretory signal sequence is represented by residues 1-18, which are presumably lacking from the mature secreted form of the protein. CRP binds 2 calcium ions per subunit and reportedly forms a homopentameric structure.
Immunoassays may be configured in a variety of formats known in the art. In the case of a competitive immunoassay, markers to be detected must contain the epitope bound by the single antibody used in the assay in order to be detected. In the case of a sandwich immunoassay, markers to be detected must contain at least two epitopes bound by the antibody used in the assay in order to be detected. Taking CCL23 as an example, an assay configured to detect this marker may be configured to be a “total” CCL23 assay by selecting antibodies that bind in the regions that are common to both CCL23 and CCL23 splice variant. Alternatively, an assay may be configured to be specific to CCL23 splice variant, relative to CCL23, by selecting at least one antibody that binds to the splice variant but not to CCL23.
Preferred assays may be described herein as being “sensitive” or “insensitive” for a particular form of a marker, relative to one or more other forms. An “insensitive” assay as that term is used with regard to a target molecule is configured to provide a signal that is within a factor of 5, more preferably within a factor of two, and most preferably within 20%, when comparing assay results for equimolar amounts of the target and non-target. A “sensitive” assay as that term is used with regard to a target molecule is configured to provide a signal that is at least a factor of 5, more preferably a factor of ten, and most preferably a factor of 100 or more, greater when comparing assay results for equimolar amounts of the target and non-target. For example, a CCL23 assay may be sensitive relative to CCL23 splice variant; may be insensitive relative to CCL23 splice variant, but sensitive relative to one or more N-terminal processed forms of CCL23 selected from the group consisting of CCL2319-99, CCL2322-99, CCL2327-99, and CCL2330-99, etc.
The term “antibody” as used herein refers to a peptide or polypeptide derived from, modeled after or substantially encoded by an immunoglobulin gene or immunoglobulin genes, or fragments thereof, capable of specifically binding an antigen or epitope. See, e.g. Fundamental Immunology, 3rd Edition, W. E. Paul, ed., Raven Press, N.Y. (1993); Wilson (1994) J. Immunol. Methods 175:267-273; Yarmush (1992) J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 25:85-97. The term antibody includes antigen-binding portions, i.e., “antigen binding sites,” (e.g., fragments, subsequences, complementarity determining regions (CDRs)) that retain capacity to bind antigen, including (i) a Fab fragment, a monovalent fragment consisting of the VL, VH, CL and CH1 domains; (ii) a F(ab′)2 fragment, a bivalent fragment comprising two Fab fragments linked by a disulfide bridge at the hinge region; (iii) a Fd fragment consisting of the VH and CH1 domains; (iv) a Fv fragment consisting of the VL and VH domains of a single arm of an antibody, (v) a dAb fragment (Ward et al., (1989) Nature 341:544-546), which consists of a VH domain; and (vi) an isolated complementarity determining region (CDR). Single chain antibodies are also included by reference in the term “antibody.”
The term “specifically binds” is not intended to indicate that an antibody binds exclusively to its intended target. Rather, an antibody “specifically binds” if its affinity for its intended target is about 5-fold greater when compared to its affinity for a non-target molecule. Preferred immunoassays of the present invention utilize at least one antibody that specifically binds its intended target relative to one or more non-targets. Preferably the affinity of the antibody will be at least about 5 fold, preferably 10 fold, more preferably 25-fold, even more preferably 50-fold, and most preferably 100-fold or more, greater for a target molecule than its affinity for a non-target molecule. In preferred embodiments, Specific binding between an antibody or other binding agent and an antigen means a binding affinity of at least 106 M−1. Preferred antibodies bind with affinities of at least about 107 M−1, and preferably between about 108 M−1 to about 109 M−1, about 109 M−1 to about 1010 M−1, or about 1010 M−1 to about 1011 M−1. Affinity is calculated as Kd=koff/kon (koff is the dissociation rate constant, kon is the association rate constant and Kd is the equilibrium constant. Affinity can be determined at equilibrium by measuring the fraction bound (r) of labeled ligand at various concentrations (c). The data are graphed using the Scatchard equation: r/c=K(n−r):
The term “marker” as used herein refers to proteins, polypeptides, glycoproteins, proteoglycans, lipids, lipoproteins, glycolipids, phospholipids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, etc. or small molecules to be used as targets for screening test samples obtained from subjects. “Proteins or polypeptides” used as markers in the present invention are contemplated to include any fragments thereof, in particular, immunologically detectable fragments. Markers can also include clinical “scores” such as a pre-test probability assignment, a pulmonary hypertension “Daniel” score, an NIH stroke score, a Sepsis Score of Elebute and Stoner, a Duke Criteria for Infective Endocarditis, a Mannheim Peritonitis Index, an “Apache” score, etc.
The term “subject-derived marker” as used herein refers to protein polypeptide, phospholipid, nucleic acid, prion, glycoprotein, proteoglycan, glycolipid, lipid, lipoprotein, carbohydrate, or small molecule markers that are expressed or produced by one or more cells of the subject. The presence, absence, amount, or change in amount of one or more markers may indicate that a particular disease is present, or may indicate that a particular disease is absent. Additional markers may be used that are derived not from the subject, but rather that are expressed by pathogenic or infectious organisms that are correlated with a particular disease. Such markers are preferably protein, polypeptide, phospholipid, nucleic acid, prion, or small molecule markers that identify the infectious diseases described above.
The term “test sample” as used herein refers to a sample of bodily fluid obtained for the purpose of diagnosis, prognosis, or evaluation of a subject of interest, such as a patient. In certain embodiments, such a sample may be obtained for the purpose of determining the outcome of an ongoing condition or the effect of a treatment regimen on a condition. Preferred test samples include blood, serum, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, urine, saliva, sputum, and pleural effusions. In addition, one of skill in the art would realize that some test samples would be more readily analyzed following a fractionation or purification procedure, for example, separation of whole blood into serum or plasma components.
As used herein, a “plurality” as used herein refers to at least two. Preferably, a plurality refers to at least 3, more preferably at least 5, even more preferably at least 10, even more preferably at least 15, and most preferably at least 20. In particularly preferred embodiments, a plurality is a large number, i.e., at least 100.
The term “subject” as used herein refers to a human or non-human organism. Thus, the methods and compositions described herein are applicable to both human and veterinary disease. Further, while a subject is preferably a living organism, the invention described herein may be used in post-mortem analysis as well. Preferred subjects are “patients,” i.e., living humans that are receiving medical care for a disease or condition. This includes persons with no defined illness who are being investigated for signs of pathology.
The term “low risk patient” as used herein refers to a subject in which either no clinically evident infection or a low risk infection is exhibited in the near term following presenting for medical treatment with clinically evident SIRS. “Low risk infection” as used herein refers to one or more conditions selected from the following group: bronchitis, cystitis, gastroenteritis, influenza, mononucleosis, otitis media, rhinovirus infection, sinusitis, streptococcal pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and viral infection.
The term “high risk patient” as used herein refers to a subject in which either a high risk infection, severe sepsis, or septic shock is exhibited in the near term following presenting for medical treatment with clinically evident SIRS. “High risk infection” as used herein refers to one or more conditions selected from the following group: appendicitis, bowel perforation, cholecystitis, cholangitis, diverticulitis, infectious colitis, ischemic bowel disease, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis, pelvic inflammatory disease post-surgical infection, pyelonephritis, endometritis, prostatitis, renal abscess, peritonsillar abscess, dental abscess, lobar pneumonia, pulmonary abscess, fungal pneumonia, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, soft tissue abscess, infected decubitus ulcer or wound, bacteremia, fungemia, endocarditis, meningitis, brain abscess, intravascular catheter infection, prosthetic device infection, and malaria.
The term “near term” refers to a period of from time t to 7 days following time t. Preferably, the time t is either the presentation for medical care or the time at which a sample is drawn for use in the methods described herein. Most preferable near term periods are the period from time t to 3 days, 48 hours, or 24 hours following time t.
A prognosis is often determined by examining one or more “prognostic indicators.” These are markers, the presence or amount of which in a patient (or a sample obtained from the patient) signal a probability that a given course or outcome will occur. For example, when one or more prognostic indicators reach a sufficiently high level in samples obtained from such patients, the level may signal that the patient is at an increased probability for experiencing a future stroke in comparison to a similar patient exhibiting a lower marker level. A level or a change in level of a prognostic indicator, which in turn is associated with an increased probability of morbidity or death, is referred to as being “associated with an increased predisposition to an adverse outcome” in a patient. Preferred prognostic markers can predict the chance of mortality in the “near term,” which as used herein refers to risk within 7 days of obtaining the sample in which the prognostic indicator is measured.
The term “correlating” or “relating” as used herein in reference to the use of markers, refers to comparing the presence or amount of the marker(s) in a patient to its presence or amount in persons known to suffer from, or known to be at risk of, a given condition; or in persons known to be free of a given condition. As discussed above, a marker level in a patient sample can be compared to a level known to be associated with a specific diagnosis. The sample's marker level is said to have been correlated with a diagnosis; that is, the skilled artisan can use the marker level to determine whether the patient suffers from a specific type diagnosis, and respond accordingly. Alternatively, the sample's marker level can be compared to a marker level known to be associated with a good outcome (e.g., the absence of disease, etc.). In preferred embodiments, a profile of marker levels are correlated to a global probability or a particular outcome using ROC curves.
The term “discrete” as used herein refers to areas of a surface that are non-contiguous. That is, two areas are discrete from one another if a border that is not part of either area completely surrounds each of the two areas.
The term “independently addressable” as used herein refers to discrete areas of a surface from which a specific signal may be obtained.
The term “therapy regimen” refers to one or more interventions made by a caregiver in hopes of treating a disease or condition. Therapy regimens for sepsis are well known in the art. Included is the “early sepsis therapy regimen,” which as used herein refers to a set of supportive therapies designed to reduce the risk of mortality when administered within the initial 24 hours, more preferably within the initial 12 hours, and most preferably within the initial 6 hours or earlier, of assigning a diagnosis of SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or MODS to a subject. Such supportive therapies comprise a spectrum of treatments including resuscitation, fluid delivery, vasopressor administration, inotrope administration, steroid administration, blood product administration, and/or sedation. See, e.g., Dellinger et al., Crit. Care Med. 32: 858-873, 2004, and Rivers et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 345: 1368-1377, 2001 (providing a description of “early goal directed therapy” as that term is used herein), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Preferably, such an early sepsis therapy regimen comprises one or more, and preferably a plurality, of the following therapies:
The term “related marker” as used herein refers to one or more fragments of a particular marker or its biosynthetic parent that may be detected as a surrogate for the marker itself or as independent markers. For example, human BNP is derived by proteolysis of a 108 amino acid precursor molecule, referred to hereinafter as BNP1-108. Mature BNP, or “the BNP natriuretic peptide,” or “BNP-32” is a 32 amino acid molecule representing amino acids 77-108 of this precursor, which may be referred to as BNP77-108. The remaining residues 1-76 are referred to hereinafter as BNP1-76, and are also known as “NT-proBNP.” Additionally, related markers may be the result of covalent modification of the parent marker, for example by oxidation of methionine residues, ubiquitination, cysteinylation, nitrosylation (e.g., containing nitrotyrosine residues), halogenation (e.g., containing chlorotyrosine and/or bromotyrosine residues), glycosylation, complex formation, differential splicing, etc.
The sequence of the 108 amino acid BNP precursor pro-BNP (BNP1-108) is as follows, with mature BNP (BNP77-108) underlined:
BNP1-108 is synthesized as a larger precursor pre-pro-BNP having the following sequence (with the “pre” sequence shown in bold):
While mature BNP itself may be used as a marker in the present invention, the prepro-BNP, BNP1-108 and BNP1-76 molecules represent BNP-related markers that may be measured either as surrogates for mature BNP or as markers in and of themselves. In addition, one or more fragments of these molecules, including BNP-related polypeptides selected from the group consisting of BNP77-106, BNP79-106, BNP76-107, BNP69-108, BNP79-108, BNP80-108, BNP81-108, BNP83-108, BNP39-86, BNP53-85, BNP66-98, BNP30-103, BNP11-107, BNP9-106, and BNP3-108 may also be present in circulation. In addition, natriuretic peptide fragments, including BNP fragments, may comprise one or more oxidizable methionines, the oxidation of which to methionine sulfoxide or methionine sulfone produces additional BNP-related markers. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 10/419,059, filed Apr. 17, 2003, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety including all tables, figures and claims.
Because production of marker fragments is an ongoing process that may be a function of, inter alia, the elapsed time between onset of an event triggering marker release into the tissues and the time the sample is obtained or analyzed; the elapsed time between sample acquisition and the time the sample is analyzed; the type of tissue sample at issue; the storage conditions; the quantity of proteolytic enzymes present; etc., it may be necessary to consider this degradation when both designing an assay for one or more markers, and when performing such an assay, in order to provide an accurate prognostic or diagnostic result. In addition, individual antibodies that distinguish amongst a plurality of marker fragments may be individually employed to separately detect the presence or amount of different fragments. The results of this individual detection may provide a more accurate prognostic or diagnostic result than detecting the plurality of fragments in a single assay. For example, different weighting factors may be applied to the various fragment measurements to provide a more accurate estimate of the amount of natriuretic peptide originally present in the sample.
In a similar fashion, many of the markers described herein are synthesized as larger precursor molecules, which are then processed to provide mature marker; and/or are present in circulation in the form of fragments of the marker. Thus, “related markers” to each of the markers described herein may be identified and used in an analogous fashion to that described above for BNP.
Removal of polypeptide markers from the circulation often involves degradation pathways. Moreover, inhibitors of such degradation pathways may hold promise in treatment of certain diseases. See, e.g., Trindade and Rouleau, Heart Fail. Monit. 2: 2-7, 2001. However, the measurement of the polypeptide markers has focused generally upon measurement of the intact form without consideration of the degradation state of the molecules. Assays may be designed with an understanding of the degradation pathways of the polypeptide markers and the products formed during this degradation, in order to accurately measure the biologically active forms of a particular polypeptide marker in a sample. The unintended measurement of both the biologically active polypeptide marker(s) of interest and inactive fragments derived from the markers may result in an overestimation of the concentration of biologically active form(s) in a sample.
The failure to consider the degradation fragments that may be present in a clinical sample may have serious consequences for the accuracy of any diagnostic or prognostic method. Consider for example a simple case, where a sandwich immunoassay is provided for BNP, and a significant amount (e.g., 50%) of the biologically active BNP that had been present has now been degraded into an inactive form. An immunoassay formulated with antibodies that bind a region common to the biologically active BNP and the inactive fragment(s) will overestimate the amount of biologically active BNP present in the sample by 2-fold, potentially resulting in a “false positive” result. Overestimation of the biologically active form(s) present in a sample may also have serious consequences for patient management. Considering the BNP example again, the BNP concentration may be used to determine if therapy is effective (e.g., by monitoring BNP to see if an elevated level is returning to normal upon treatment). The same “false positive” BNP result discussed above may lead the physician to continue, increase, or modify treatment because of the false impression that current therapy is ineffective.
Likewise, it may be necessary to consider the complex state of one or more markers described herein. For example, troponin exists in muscle mainly as a “ternary complex” comprising three troponin polypeptides (T, I and C). But troponin I and troponin T circulate in the blood in forms other than the I/T/C ternery complex. Rather, each of (i) free cardiac-specific troponin I, (ii) binary complexes (e.g., troponin I/C complex), and (iii) ternary complexes all circulate in the blood. Furthermore, the “complex state” of troponin I and T may change over time in a patient, e.g., due to binding of free troponin polypeptides to other circulating troponin polypeptides. Immunoassays that fail to consider the “complex state” of troponin may not detect all of the cardiac-specific isoform of interest.
Identification of Marker Panels
In accordance with the present invention, there are provided methods and systems for the identification of one or more markers useful in diagnosis, prognosis, and/or determining an appropriate therapeutic course. Suitable methods for identifying markers useful for such purposes are described in detail in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/436,392 filed Dec. 24, 2002, PCT application US03/41426 filed Dec. 23, 2003, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/331,127 filed Dec. 27, 2002, and PCT application No. US03/41453, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, including all tables, figures, and claims.
One skilled in the art will also recognize that univariate analysis of markers can be performed and the data from the univariate analyses of multiple markers can be combined to form panels of markers to differentiate different disease conditions. Such methods include multiple linear regression, determining interaction terms, stepwise regression, etc.
In developing a panel of markers, data for a number of potential markers may be obtained from a group of subjects by testing for the presence or level of certain markers. The group of subjects is divided into two sets. The first set includes subjects who have been confirmed as having a disease, outcome, or, more generally, being in a first condition state. For example, this first set of patients may be those diagnosed with SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock and/or MODS that died as a result of that disease. Hereinafter, subjects in this first set will be referred to as “diseased.”
The second set of subjects is simply those who do not fall within the first set. Subjects in this second set will hereinafter be referred to as “non-diseased”. Preferably, the first set and the second set each have an approximately equal number of subjects. This set may be normal patients, and/or patients suffering from another cause of SIRS, and/or that lived to a particular endpoint of interest.
The data obtained from subjects in these sets preferably includes levels of a plurality of markers. Preferably, data for the same set of markers is available for each patient. This set of markers may include all candidate markers that may be suspected as being relevant to the detection of a particular disease or condition. Actual known relevance is not required. Embodiments of the methods and systems described herein may be used to determine which of the candidate markers are most relevant to the diagnosis of the disease or condition. The levels of each marker in the two sets of subjects may be distributed across a broad range, e.g., as a Gaussian distribution. However, no distribution fit is required.
As noted above, a single marker often is incapable of definitively identifying a subject as falling within a first or second group in a prospective fashion. For example, if a patient is measured as having a marker level that falls within an overlapping region in the distribution of diseased and non-diseased subjects, the results of the test may be useless in diagnosing the patient. An artificial cutoff may be used to distinguish between a positive and a negative test result for the detection of the disease or condition. Regardless of where the cutoff is selected, the effectiveness of the single marker as a diagnosis tool is unaffected. Changing the cutoff merely trades off between the number of false positives and the number of false negatives resulting from the use of the single marker. The effectiveness of a test having such an overlap is often expressed using a ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve. ROC curves are well known to those skilled in the art.
The horizontal axis of the ROC curve represents (1-specificity), which increases with the rate of false positives. The vertical axis of the curve represents sensitivity, which increases with the rate of true positives. Thus, for a particular cutoff selected, the value of (1-specificity) may be determined, and a corresponding sensitivity may be obtained. The area under the ROC curve is a measure of the probability that the measured marker level will allow correct identification of a disease or condition. Thus, the area under the ROC curve can be used to determine the effectiveness of the test.
As discussed above, the measurement of the level of a single marker may have limited usefulness, e.g., it may be non-specifically increased due to inflammation. The measurement of additional markers provides additional information, but the difficulty lies in properly combining the levels of two potentially unrelated measurements. In the methods and systems according to embodiments of the present invention, data relating to levels of various markers for the sets of diseased and non-diseased patients may be used to develop a panel of markers to provide a useful panel response. The data may be provided in a database such as Microsoft Access, Oracle, other SQL databases or simply in a data file. The database or data file may contain, for example, a patient identifier such as a name or number, the levels of the various markers present, and whether the patient is diseased or non-diseased.
Next, an artificial cutoff region may be initially selected for each marker. The location of the cutoff region may initially be selected at any point, but the selection may affect the optimization process described below. In this regard, selection near a suspected optimal location may facilitate faster convergence of the optimizer. In a preferred method, the cutoff region is initially centered about the center of the overlap region of the two sets of patients. In one embodiment, the cutoff region may simply be a cutoff point. In other embodiments, the cutoff region may have a length of greater than zero. In this regard, the cutoff region may be defined by a center value and a magnitude of length. In practice, the initial selection of the limits of the cutoff region may be determined according to a pre-selected percentile of each set of subjects. For example, a point above which a pre-selected percentile of diseased patients are measured may be used as the right (upper) end of the cutoff range.
Each marker value for each patient may then be mapped to an indicator. The indicator is assigned one value below the cutoff region and another value above the cutoff region. For example, if a marker generally has a lower value for non-diseased patients and a higher value for diseased patients, a zero indicator will be assigned to a low value for a particular marker, indicating a potentially low likelihood of a positive diagnosis. In other embodiments, the indicator may be calculated based on a polynomial. The coefficients of the polynomial may be determined based on the distributions of the marker values among the diseased and non-diseased subjects.
The relative importance of the various markers may be indicated by a weighting factor. The weighting factor may initially be assigned as a coefficient for each marker. As with the cutoff region, the initial selection of the weighting factor may be selected at any acceptable value, but the selection may affect the optimization process. In this regard, selection near a suspected optimal location may facilitate faster convergence of the optimizer. In a preferred method, acceptable weighting coefficients may range between zero and one, and an initial weighting coefficient for each marker may be assigned as 0.5. In a preferred embodiment, the initial weighting coefficient for each marker may be associated with the effectiveness of that marker by itself. For example, a ROC curve may be generated for the single marker, and the area under the ROC curve may be used as the initial weighting coefficient for that marker.
Next, a panel response may be calculated for each subject in each of the two sets. The panel response is a function of the indicators to which each marker level is mapped and the weighting coefficients for each marker. In a preferred embodiment, the panel response (R) for each subject (j) is expressed as:
Rj=ΣwiIij,
where i is the marker index, j is the subject index, wi is the weighting coefficient for marker i, I is the indicator value to which the marker level for marker i is mapped for subject j, and Σ is the summation over all candidate markers i. This panel response value may be referred to as a “panel index.”
One advantage of using an indicator value rather than the marker value is that an extraordinarily high or low marker levels do not change the probability of a diagnosis of diseased or non-diseased for that particular marker. Typically, a marker value above a certain level generally indicates a certain condition state. Marker values above that level indicate the condition state with the same certainty. Thus, an extraordinarily high marker value may not indicate an extraordinarily high probability of that condition state. The use of an indicator which is constant on one side of the cutoff region eliminates this concern.
The panel response may also be a general function of several parameters including the marker levels and other factors including, for example, race and gender of the patient. Other factors contributing to the panel response may include the slope of the value of a particular marker over time. For example, a patient may be measured when first arriving at the hospital for a particular marker. The same marker may be measured again an hour later, and the level of change may be reflected in the panel response. Further, additional markers may be derived from other markers and may contribute to the value of the panel response. For example, the ratio of values of two markers may be a factor in calculating the panel response.
Having obtained panel responses for each subject in each set of subjects, the distribution of the panel responses for each set may now be analyzed. An objective function may be defined to facilitate the selection of an effective panel. The objective function should generally be indicative of the effectiveness of the panel, as may be expressed by, for example, overlap of the panel responses of the diseased set of subjects and the panel responses of the non-diseased set of subjects. In this manner, the objective function may be optimized to maximize the effectiveness of the panel by, for example, minimizing the overlap.
In a preferred embodiment, the ROC curve representing the panel responses of the two sets of subjects may be used to define the objective function. For example, the objective function may reflect the area under the ROC curve. By maximizing the area under the curve, one may maximize the effectiveness of the panel of markers. In other embodiments, other features of the ROC curve may be used to define the objective function. For example, the point at which the slope of the ROC curve is equal to one may be a useful feature. In other embodiments, the point at which the product of sensitivity and specificity is a maximum, sometimes referred to as the “knee,” may be used. In an embodiment, the sensitivity at the knee may be maximized. In further embodiments, the sensitivity at a predetermined specificity level may be used to define the objective function. Other embodiments may use the specificity at a predetermined sensitivity level may be used. In still other embodiments, combinations of two or more of these ROC-curve features may be used.
It is possible that one of the markers in the panel is specific to the disease or condition being diagnosed. When such markers are present at above or below a certain threshold, the panel response may be set to return a “positive” test result. When the threshold is not satisfied, however, the levels of the marker may nevertheless be used as possible contributors to the objective function.
An optimization algorithm may be used to maximize or minimize the objective function. Optimization algorithms are well-known to those skilled in the art and include several commonly available minimizing or maximizing functions including the Simplex method and other constrained optimization techniques. It is understood by those skilled in the art that some minimization functions are better than others at searching for global minimums, rather than local minimums. In the optimization process, the location and size of the cutoff region for each marker may be allowed to vary to provide at least two degrees of freedom per marker. Such variable parameters are referred to herein as independent variables. In a preferred embodiment, the weighting coefficient for each marker is also allowed to vary across iterations of the optimization algorithm. In various embodiments, any permutation of these parameters may be used as independent variables.
In addition to the above-described parameters, the sense of each marker may also be used as an independent variable. For example, in many cases, it may not be known whether a higher level for a certain marker is generally indicative of a diseased state or a non-diseased state. In such a case, it may be useful to allow the optimization process to search on both sides. In practice, this may be implemented in several ways. For example, in one embodiment, the sense may be a truly separate independent variable which may be flipped between positive and negative by the optimization process. Alternatively, the sense may be implemented by allowing the weighting coefficient to be negative.
The optimization algorithm may be provided with certain constraints as well. For example, the resulting ROC curve may be constrained to provide an area-under-curve of greater than a particular value. ROC curves having an area under the curve of 0.5 indicate complete randomness, while an area under the curve of 1.0 reflects perfect separation of the two sets. Thus, a minimum acceptable value, such as 0.75, may be used as a constraint, particularly if the objective function does not incorporate the area under the curve. Other constraints may include limitations on the weighting coefficients of particular markers. Additional constraints may limit the sum of all the weighting coefficients to a particular value, such as 1.0.
The iterations of the optimization algorithm generally vary the independent parameters to satisfy the constraints while minimizing or maximizing the objective function. The number of iterations may be limited in the optimization process. Further, the optimization process may be terminated when the difference in the objective function between two consecutive iterations is below a predetermined threshold, thereby indicating that the optimization algorithm has reached a region of a local minimum or a maximum.
Thus, the optimization process may provide a panel of markers including weighting coefficients for each marker and cutoff regions for the mapping of marker values to indicators. Certain markers may be then be changed or even eliminated from the panel, and the process repeated until a satisfactory result is obtained. The effective contribution of each marker in the panel may be determined to identify the relative importance of the markers. In one embodiment, the weighting coefficients resulting from the optimization process may be used to determine the relative importance of each marker. The markers with the lowest coefficients may be eliminated or replaced.
In certain cases, the lower weighting coefficients may not be indicative of a low importance. Similarly, a higher weighting coefficient may not be indicative of a high importance. For example, the optimization process may result in a high coefficient if the associated marker is irrelevant to the diagnosis. In this instance, there may not be any advantage that will drive the coefficient lower. Varying this coefficient may not affect the value of the objective function.
To allow a determination of test accuracy, a “gold standard” test criterion may be selected which allows selection of subjects into two or more groups for comparison by the foregoing methods. In the case of sepsis, this gold standard may be recovery of organisms from culture of blood, urine, pleural fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, synnovial fluid, sputum, or other tissue specimens. This implies that those negative for the gold standard are free of sepsis; however, as discussed above, 50% or more of patients exhibiting strong clinical evidence of sepsis are negative on culture. In this case, those patients showing clinical evidence of sepsis but a negative gold standard result may be omitted from the comparison groups. Alternatively, an initial comparison of confirmed sepsis subjects may be compared to normal healthy control subjects. In the case of a prognosis, mortality is a common test criterion.
It is possible to create many mathematical algorithms for combining multiple markers by alternative methods. Indeed, there is a well established branch of statistics and computational science devoted to this area (the optimal solution of multi-dimensional classification problems). Specific techniques that may be used to model the Clinical Data include Multivariate Logistic Regression, Combinatorial Optimization, Classification Trees, Neural Networks, and Support Vector Machines.
Clinical data may be combined using classification trees (also known as decision trees). Many statistical software packages are available that will implement this given the Clinical Data in the format X(m,n) and R(n). For example, MATLAB, or CART, or SPSS, etc. The trees may be produced with a large variety of splitting rules, prior probabilities, and weighting schemes. The trees may be fit to an arbitrary level of detail, or pruned using various cross-validation methods to avoid over-fitting the data. Large ensembles of trees may also be combined, for example, via Bootstrap Aggregation. A multivariate logistic regression model may be feed as input (together with the biomarkers) to a decision tree algorithm, or vice versa, the node assignments of a decision tree model may be feed as input (together with the biomarkers) into multivariate logistic regression. Similarly, any of the models may be feed as one of the inputs (together with the biomarkers) to a Neural Network.
Methods for combining the clinical data may also take advantage of additional clinical information, such as a patient's age, or gender, or race, or health history information. This information is represented as one, or more additional variables (in addition to the biomarkers) and the models (described above) are recomputed.
Measures of test accuracy may be obtained as described in Fischer et al., Intensive Care Med. 29: 1043-51, 2003, and used to determine the effectiveness of a given marker or panel of markers. These measures include sensitivity and specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and ROC curve areas. As discussed above, preferred tests and assays exhibit one or more of the following results on these various measures:
A panel consisting of the markers referenced herein and/or their related markers may be constructed to provide relevant information related to the diagnosis of interest. Such a panel may be constructed using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or more individual markers. The analysis of a single marker or subsets of markers comprising larger panel of markers could be carried out by one skilled in the art to optimize clinical sensitivity or specificity in various clinical settings. These include, but are not limited to ambulatory, urgent care, critical care, intensive care, monitoring unit, inpatient, outpatient, physician office, medical clinic, and health screening settings. Furthermore, one skilled in the art can use a single marker or a subset of markers comprising a larger panel of markers in combination with an adjustment of the diagnostic threshold in each of the aforementioned settings to optimize clinical sensitivity and specificity.
The following table provides a list of additional preferred markers for use in the present invention. Further detail is provided in US2005/0148029, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. As described herein, markers related to each of these markers are also encompassed by the present invention.
Protein Modification and Sepsis
Ubiquitin-mediated degradation of proteins plays an important role in the control of numerous processes, such as the way in which extracellular materials are incorporated into a cell, the movement if biochemical signals from the cell membrane, and the regulation of cellular functions such as transcriptional in-off switches. The ubiquitin system has been implicated in the immune response and development. Ubiquitin is a 76-amino acid polypeptide that is conjugated to proteins targeted for degradation. The ubiquitin-protein conjugate is recognized by a 26S proteolytic complex that splits ubiquitin from the protein, which is subsequently degraded.
It has been reported that sepsis stimulates protein breakdown in skeletal muscle by a nonlysosomal energy-dependent proteolytic pathway, and because muscle levels of ubiquitin mRNA were also increased, the results were interpreted as indicating that sepsis-induced muscle protein breakdown is caused by upregulated activity of the energy-ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic pathway. The same proteolytic pathway has been implicated in muscle breakdown caused by denervation, fasting, acidosis, cancer, and burn injury. Thus, levels of ubiquitinated proteins generally, or of specific ubiquitin-protein conjugates or fragments thereof, can be measured as additional markers of the invention. See, Tiao et al., J. Clin. Invest. 99: 163-168, 1997. Moreover, circulating levels of ubiquitin itself can be a useful marker in the methods described herein. See, e.g., Majetschak et al., Blood 101: 1882-90, 2003.
Interestingly, ubiquitination of a protein or protein fragment may convert a non-specific marker into a more specific marker of sepsis. For example, muscle damage can increase the concentration of muscle proteins in circulation. But sepsis, by specifically upregulating the ubiquitination pathway, may result in an increase of ubiquitinated muscle proteins, thus distinguishing non-specific muscle damage from sepsis-induced muscle damage.
The skilled artisan will recognize that an assay for ubiquitin may be designed that recognizes ubiquitin itself, ubiquitin-protein conjugates, or both ubiquitin and ubiquitin-protein conjugates. For example, antibodies used in a sandwich immunoassay may be selected so that both the solid phase antibody and the labeled antibody recognize a portion of ubiquitin that is available for binding in both unconjugated ubiquitin and ubiquitin conjugates. Alternatively, an assay specific for ubiquitin conjugates of the muscle protein troponin could use one antibody (on a solid phase or label) that recognizes ubiquitin, and a second antibody (the other of the solid phase or label) that recognizes troponin.
The present invention contemplates measuring ubiquitin conjugates of any marker described herein and/or their related markers. Preferred ubiquitin-muscle protein conjugates for detection as markers include, but are not limited to, troponin I-ubiquitin, troponin T-ubiquitin, troponin C-ubiquitin, binary and ternary troponin complex-ubiquitin, actin-ubiquitin, myosin-ubiquitin, tropomyosin-ubiquitin, and α-actinin-ubiquitin and ubiquitinated markers related thereto.
In similar fashion, other modifications of the markers described herein, or markers related thereto, can be detected. For example, nitrotyrosine, chlorotyrosine, and/or bromotyrosine may be formed by the action of myeloperoxidase in sepsis. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,939,716. Assays for nitrotyrosine, chlorotyrosine, and/or bromotyrosine may be designed that recognize one or more of these individual modified amino acids, one or more markers containing one or more of the modified amino acids, or both modified amino acid(s) and modified marker(s).
Assay Measurement Strategies
Numerous methods and devices are well known to the skilled artisan for the detection and analysis of the markers of the instant invention. With regard to polypeptides or proteins in patient test samples, immunoassay devices and methods are often used. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,143,576; 6,113,855; 6,019,944; 5,985,579; 5,947,124; 5,939,272; 5,922,615; 5,885,527; 5,851,776; 5,824,799; 5,679,526; 5,525,524; and 5,480,792, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, including all tables, figures and claims. These devices and methods can utilize labeled molecules in various sandwich, competitive, or non-competitive assay formats, to generate a signal that is related to the presence or amount of an analyte of interest. Additionally, certain methods and devices, such as biosensors and optical immunoassays, may be employed to determine the presence or amount of analytes without the need for a labeled molecule. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,631,171; and 5,955,377, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, including all tables, figures and claims. One skilled in the art also recognizes that robotic instrumentation including but not limited to Beckman Access, Abbott AxSym, Roche ElecSys, Dade Behring Stratus systems are among the immunoassay analyzers that are capable of performing the immunoassays taught herein.
Preferably the markers are analyzed using an immunoassay, and most preferably sandwich immunoassay, although other methods are well known to those skilled in the art (for example, the measurement of marker RNA levels). The presence or amount of a marker is generally determined using antibodies specific for each marker and detecting specific binding. Any suitable immunoassay may be utilized, for example, enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISA), radioimmunoassays (RIAs), competitive binding assays, and the like. Specific immunological binding of the antibody to the marker can be detected directly or indirectly. Direct labels include fluorescent or luminescent tags, metals, dyes, radionuclides, and the like, attached to the antibody. Indirect labels include various enzymes well known in the art, such as alkaline phosphatase, horseradish peroxidase and the like.
The use of immobilized antibodies specific for the markers is also contemplated by the present invention. The antibodies could be immobilized onto a variety of solid supports, such as magnetic or chromatographic matrix particles, the surface of an assay place (such as microtiter wells), pieces of a solid substrate material or membrane (such as plastic, nylon, paper), and the like. An assay strip could be prepared by coating the antibody or a plurality of antibodies in an array on solid support. This strip could then be dipped into the test sample and then processed quickly through washes and detection steps to generate a measurable signal, such as a colored spot.
For separate or sequential assay of markers, suitable apparatuses include clinical laboratory analyzers such as the ElecSys (Roche), the AxSym (Abbott), the Access (Beckman), the ADVIA® CENTAUR® (Bayer) immunoassay systems, the NICHOLS ADVANTAGE® (Nichols Institute) immunoassay system, etc. Preferred apparatuses perform simultaneous assays of a plurality of markers using a single test device. Particularly useful physical formats comprise surfaces having a plurality of discrete, adressable locations for the detection of a plurality of different analytes. Such formats include protein microarrays, or “protein chips” (see, e.g., Ng and Ilag, J. Cell Mol. Med. 6: 329-340 (2002)) and certain capillary devices (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,019,944). In these embodiments, each discrete surface location may comprise antibodies to immobilize one or more analyte(s) (e.g., a marker) for detection at each location. Surfaces may alternatively comprise one or more discrete particles (e.g., microparticles or nanoparticles) immobilized at discrete locations of a surface, where the microparticles comprise antibodies to immobilize one analyte (e.g., a marker) for detection.
Preferred assay devices of the present invention will comprise, for one or more assays, a first antibody conjugated to a solid phase and a second antibody conjugated to a signal development element. Such assay devices are configured to perform a sandwich immunoassay for one or more analytes. These assay devices will preferably further comprise a sample application zone, and a flow path from the sample application zone to a second device region comprising the first antibody conjugated to a solid phase.
Flow of a sample along the flow path may be driven passively (e.g., by capillary, hydrostatic, or other forces that do not require further manipulation of the device once sample is applied), actively (e.g., by application of force generated via mechanical pumps, electroosmotic pumps, centrifugal force, increased air pressure, etc.), or by a combination of active and passive driving forces. Most preferably, sample applied to the sample application zone will contact both a first antibody conjugated to a solid phase and a second antibody conjugated to a signal development element along the flow path (sandwich assay format). Additional elements, such as filters to separate plasma or serum from blood, mixing chambers, etc., may be included as required by the artisan. Exemplary devices are described in Chapter 41, entitled “Near Patient Tests: Triage® Cardiac System,” in The Immunoassay Handbook, 2nd ed., David Wild, ed., Nature Publishing Group, 2001, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
A panel consisting of the markers referenced above may be constructed to provide relevant information related to differential diagnosis. Such a panel may be constucted using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20, or more or individual markers. The analysis of a single marker or subsets of markers comprising a larger panel of markers could be carried out by one skilled in the art to optimize clinical sensitivity or specificity in various clinical settings. These include, but are not limited to ambulatory, urgent care, critical care, intensive care, monitoring unit, inpatient, outpatient, physician office, medical clinic, and health screening settings. Furthermore, one skilled in the art can use a single marker or a subset of markers comprising a larger panel of markers in combination with an adjustment of the diagnostic threshold in each of the aforementioned settings to optimize clinical sensitivity and specificity. The clinical sensitivity of an assay is defined as the percentage of those with the disease that the assay correctly predicts, and the specificity of an assay is defined as the percentage of those without the disease that the assay correctly predicts (Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry, 2nd edition, Carl Burtis and Edward Ashwood eds., W. B. Saunders and Company, p. 496).
The analysis of markers could be carried out in a variety of physical formats as well. For example, the use of microtiter plates or automation could be used to facilitate the processing of large numbers of test samples. Alternatively, single sample formats could be developed to facilitate immediate treatment and diagnosis in a timely fashion, for example, in ambulatory transport or emergency room settings.
In another embodiment, the present invention provides a kit for the analysis of markers. Such a kit preferably comprises devises and reagents for the analysis of at least one test sample and instructions for performing the assay. Optionally the kits may contain one or more means for using information obtained from immunoassays performed for a marker panel to rule in or out certain diagnoses. Other measurement strategies applicable to the methods described herein include chromatography (e.g., HPLC), mass spectrometry, receptor-based assays, and combinations of the foregoing.
Selection of Antibodies
The generation and selection of antibodies may be accomplished several ways. For example, one way is to purify polypeptides of interest or to synthesize the polypeptides of interest using, e.g., solid phase peptide synthesis methods well known in the art. See, e.g., Guide to Protein Purification, Murray P. Deutcher, ed., Meth. Enzymol. Vol 182 (1990); Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis, Greg B. Fields ed., Meth. Enzymol. Vol 289 (1997); Kiso et al., Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 38: 1192-99, 1990; Mostafavi et al., Biomed. Pept. Proteins Nucleic Acids 1: 255-60, 1995; Fujiwara et al., Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 44: 1326-31, 1996. The selected polypeptides may then be injected, for example, into mice or rabbits, to generate polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies. One skilled in the art will recognize that many procedures are available for the production of antibodies, for example, as described in Antibodies, A Laboratory Manual, Ed Harlow and David Lane, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1988), Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. One skilled in the art will also appreciate that binding fragments or Fab fragments which mimic antibodies can also be prepared from genetic information by various procedures (Antibody Engineering: A Practical Approach (Borrebaeck, C., ed.), 1995, Oxford University Press, Oxford; J. Immunol. 149, 3914-3920 (1992)).
In addition, numerous publications have reported the use of phage display technology to produce and screen libraries of polypeptides for binding to a selected target. See, e.g, Cwirla et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 6378-82, 1990; Devlin et al., Science 249, 404-6, 1990, Scott and Smith, Science 249, 386-88, 1990; and Ladner et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,571,698. A basic concept of phage display methods is the establishment of a physical association between DNA encoding a polypeptide to be screened and the polypeptide. This physical association is provided by the phage particle, which displays a polypeptide as part of a capsid enclosing the phage genome which encodes the polypeptide. The establishment of a physical association between polypeptides and their genetic material allows simultaneous mass screening of very large numbers of phage bearing different polypeptides. Phage displaying a polypeptide with affinity to a target bind to the target and these phage are enriched by affinity screening to the target. The identity of polypeptides displayed from these phage can be determined from their respective genomes. Using these methods a polypeptide identified as having a binding affinity for a desired target can then be synthesized in bulk by conventional means. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,057,098, which is hereby incorporated in its entirety, including all tables, figures, and claims.
The antibodies that are generated by these methods may then be selected by first screening for affinity and specificity with the purified polypeptide of interest and, if required, comparing the results to the affinity and specificity of the antibodies with polypeptides that are desired to be excluded from binding. The screening procedure can involve immobilization of the purified polypeptides in separate wells of microtiter plates. The solution containing a potential antibody or groups of antibodies is then placed into the respective microtiter wells and incubated for about 30 min to 2 h. The microtiter wells are then washed and a labeled secondary antibody (for example, an anti-mouse antibody conjugated to alkaline phosphatase if the raised antibodies are mouse antibodies) is added to the wells and incubated for about 30 min and then washed. Substrate is added to the wells and a color reaction will appear where antibody to the immobilized polypeptide(s) are present.
The antibodies so identified may then be further analyzed for affinity and specificity in the assay design selected. In the development of immunoassays for a target protein, the purified target protein acts as a standard with which to judge the sensitivity and specificity of the immunoassay using the antibodies that have been selected. Because the binding affinity of various antibodies may differ; certain antibody pairs (e.g., in sandwich assays) may interfere with one another sterically, etc., assay performance of an antibody may be a more important measure than absolute affinity and specificity of an antibody.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that many approaches can be taken in producing antibodies or binding fragments and screening and selecting for affinity and specificity for the various polypeptides, but these approaches do not change the scope of the invention.
Selecting a Treatment Regimen
Just as the potential causes of any particular nonspecific symptom may be a large and diverse set of conditions, the appropriate treatments for these potential causes may be equally large and diverse. However, once a diagnosis is obtained, the clinician can readily select a treatment regimen that is compatible with the diagnosis. The skilled artisan is aware of appropriate treatments for numerous diseases discussed in relation to the methods of diagnosis described herein. See, e.g., Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 17th Ed. Merck Research Laboratories, Whitehouse Station, NJ, 1999. With regard to SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, recent guidelines provide additional information for the clinician. See, e.g., Dellinger et al., Crit. Care Med. 32: 858-73, 2004, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
While the present invention may be used to determine if any SIRS-related (that is, applicable to SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, and MODS) treatment should be undertaken at all, the invention is preferably used to assign a particular treatment regimen from amongst two or more possible choices of SIRS-related treatment regimens. For example, in exemplary embodiments, the present invention is used to determine if subjects should receive standard therapy or early goal-directed therapy. Thus, the methods and compositions described herein may be used to select one or more of the following treatments for inclusion in a therapy regimen:
This list is not meant to be limiting. In addition, since the methods and compositions described herein provide prognostic information, the panels and markers of the present invention may be used to monitor a course of treatment. For example, inproved or worsened prognostic state may indicate that a particular treatment is or is not efficacious.
The following examples serve to illustrate the present invention. These examples are in no way intended to limit the scope of the invention.
Test subjects in disease categories were enrolled as part of a prospective sepsis study conducted by Biosite Incorporated at 10 clinical sites in the United States. Enrollment criteria were: age 18 or older and presenting with two or more SIRS criteria, and confirmed or suspected infection and/or lactate levels greater than 2.5 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, cardiac arrest, and patients under Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.
Samples were collected by trained personnel in standard blood collection tubes with EDTA as the anticoagulant. The plasma was separated from the cells by centrifugation, frozen, and stored at −20° C. or colder until analysis. The plasma was frozen within 1 hour. Clinical histories are available for each of the patients to aid in the statistical analysis of the assay data. Patients were assigned a final diagnosis by a physician at the clinical site using the standard medical criteria in use at each clinical site. Patients were diagnosed as having systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS).
Samples from apparently healthy blood donors were purchased from Golden West Golden West Biologicals, Inc., Temecula, Calif., and were collected according to a defined protocol. Samples were collected from normal healthy individuals with no current clinical suspicion or evidence of disease. Blood was collected by trained personnel in standard blood collection tubes with EDTA as the anticoagulant. The plasma was separated from the cells by centrifugation, frozen, and stored at −20 C or colder until analysis.
Analytes (e.g., markers and/or polypeptides related thereto) were measured using standard immunoassay techniques. These techniques involve the use of antibodies to specifically bind the analyte(s) of interest. Immunoassays were performed using TECAN Genesis RSP 200/8 or Perkin Elmer Minitrak Workstations, or using microfluidic devices manufactured at Biosite Incorporated essentially as described in WO98/43739, WO98/08606, WO98/21563, and WO93/24231. Analytes may be measured using a sandwich immunoassay or using a competitive immunoassay as appropriate, depending on the characteristics and concentration range of the analyte of interest. For analysis, an aliquot of plasma was thawed and samples analyzed as described below.
The assays were calibrated using purified proteins (that is either the same as or related to the selected analyte, and that can be detected in the assay) diluted gravimetrically into EDTA plasma treated in the same manner as the sample population specimens. Endogenous levels of the analyte present in the plasma prior to addition of the purified marker protein was measured and taken into account in assigning the marker values in the calibrators. When necessary to reduce endogenous levels in the calibrators, the endogenous analyte was stripped from the plasma using standard immunoaffinity methods. Calibrators were assayed in the same manner as the sample population specimens, and the resulting data used to construct a “dose-response” curve (assay signal as a function of analyte concentration), which may be used to determine analyte concentrations from assay signals obtained from subject specimens.
Individual assays were configured to bind the following markers, and results are reported in the following examples using the following units: CCL23—ng/mL; CRP—μg/mL; and NGAL—ng/mL.
For the sandwich immunoassay in microtiter plates, a monoclonal antibody directed against a selected analyte was biotinylated using N-hydroxysuccinimide biotin (NHS-biotin) at a ratio of about 5 NHS-biotin moieties per antibody. The antibody-biotin conjugate was then added to wells of a standard avidin 384 well microtiter plate, and antibody conjugate not bound to the plate was removed. This formed the “anti-marker” in the microtiter plate. Another monoclonal antibody directed against the same analyte was conjugated to alkaline phosphatase, for example using succinimidyl 4-[N-maleimidomethyl]-cyclohexane-1-carboxylate (SMCC) and N-succinimidyl 3-[2-pyridyldithio]propionate (SPDP) (Pierce, Rockford, Ill.).
Biotinylated antibodies were pipetted into microtiter plate wells previously coated with avidin and incubated for 60 min. The solution containing unbound antibody was removed, and the wells washed with a wash buffer, consisting of 20 mM borate (pH 7.42) containing 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% sodium azide, and 0.02% Tween-20. The plasma samples (10 μL, or 20 μL for CCL4) containing added HAMA inhibitors were pipeted into the microtiter plate wells, and incubated for 60 min. The sample was then removed and the wells washed with a wash buffer. The antibody-alkaline phosphatase conjugate was then added to the wells and incubated for an additional 60 min, after which time, the antibody conjugate was removed and the wells washed with a wash buffer. A substrate, (AttoPhos®, Promega, Madison, Wis.) was added to the wells, and the rate of formation of the fluorescent product is related to the concentration of the analyte in the sample tested.
For competitive immunoassays in microtiter plates, a murine monoclonal antibody directed against a selected analyte was added to the wells of a microtiter plate and immobilized by binding to goat anti-mouse antibody that is pre-absorbed to the surface of the microtiter plate wells (Pierce, Rockford, Ill.). Any unbound murine monoclonal antibody was removed after a 60 minute incubation. This forms the “anti-marker” in the microtiter plate. A purified polypeptide that is either the same as or related to the selected analyte, and that can be bound by the monoclonal antibody, was biotinylated as described above for the biotinylation of antibodies. This biotinylated polypeptide was mixed with the sample in the presence of HAMA inhibitors, forming a mixture containing both exogenously added biotinylated polypeptide and any unlabeled analyte molecules endogenous to the sample. The amount of the monoclonal antibody and biotinylated marker added depends on various factors and was titrated empirically to obtain a satisfactory dose-response curve for the selected analyte.
This mixture was added to the microtiter plate and allowed to react with the murine monoclonal antibody for 120 minutes. After the 120 minute incubation, the unbound material was removed, and Neutralite-Alkaline Phosphatase (Southern Biotechnology; Birmingham, Ala.) was added to bind to any immobilized biotinylated polypeptide. Substrate (as described above) was added to the wells, and the rate of formation of the fluorescent product was related to the amount of biotinylated polypeptide bound, and therefore was inversely related to the endogenous amount of the analyte in the specimen.
Immunoassays were performed using microfluidic devices essentially as described in Chapter 41, entitled “Near Patient Tests: Triage® Cardiac System,” in The Immunoassay Handbook, 2nd ed., David Wild, ed., Nature Publishing Group, 2001.
For sandwich immunoassays, a plasma sample is added to the microfluidic device that contains all the necessary assay reagents, including HAMA inhibitors, in dried form. The plasma passes through a filter to remove particulate matter. Plasma enters a “reaction chamber” by capillary action. This reaction chamber contains fluorescent latex particle-antibody conjugates (hereafter called FETL-antibody conjugates) appropriate to an analyte of interest, and may contain FETL-antibody conjugates to several selected analytes. The FETL-antibody conjugates dissolve into the plasma to form a reaction mixture, which is held in the reaction chamber for an incubation period (about a minute) to allow the analyte(s) of interest in the plasma to bind to the antibodies. After the incubation period, the reaction mixture moves down the detection lane by capillary action. Antibodies to the analyte(s) of interest are immobilized in discrete capture zones on the surface of a “detection lane.” Analyte/antibody-FETL complexes formed in the reaction chamber are captured on an appropriate detection zone to form a sandwich complex, while unbound FETL-antibody conjugates are washed from the detection lane into a waste chamber by excess plasma. The amount of analyte/antibody-FETL complex bound on a capture zone is quantified with a fluorometer (Triage® MeterPlus, Biosite Incorporated) and is related to the amount of the selected analyte in the plasma specimen.
For competitive immunoassays, the procedure and process is similar to that described for sandwich immunoassays, with the following exceptions. In one configuration, fluorescent latex particle-marker (FETL-marker) conjugates are provided in the reaction chamber, and are dissolved in the plasma to form a reaction mixture. This reaction mixture contains both the unlabeled analyte endogenous to the sample, and the FETL-marker conjugates. When the reaction mixture contacts the capture zone for a analyte of interest, the unlabeled endogenous analyte and the FETL-marker conjugates compete for the limited number of antibody binding sites. Thus, the amount of FETL-marker conjugate bound to the capture zone is inversely related to the amount of analyte endogenously present in the plasma specimen. In another configuration, antibody-FETL conjugates are provided in the reaction chamber as described above for sandwich assays. In this configuration, the capture zone contains immobilized marker on the surface of the detection lane. Free antibody-FETL conjugates bind to this immobilized marker on the capture zone, while antibody-FETL conjugates bound to an analyte of interest do not bind as readily or at all to this immobilized marker. Again, the amount of FETL captured in the zone is inversely related to the amount of the selected analyte in the plasma specimen. One skilled in the art will recognize that either configuration may be used depending on the characteristics and concentrations of the selected analyte(s).
The clinical protocol followed in the study was as follows: outcomes were determined for 925 subjects at 24, 36, and 72 hours following presentation for evaluation of illness, and subjects were divided into low risk patients and high risk patients, as defined above, based on outcome. CCL23, CRP and NGAL assay measurements were performed on samples obtained at the time of enrollment into the study. 369 apparently healthy normal individuals were also included for comparison purposes. Procalcitonin was also measured using a commercially available assay (BRAHMS AG LIA assay).
The assay measurement results for each subject were used to calculate a composite value as described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/436,392 filed Dec. 24, 2002, PCT application US03/41426 filed Dec. 23, 2003, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/331,127 filed Dec. 27, 2002, and PCT application No. US03/41453, referred to as the MULTIMARKER INDEX™ value (Biosite Incorporated, abbreviated herein as “MMX”). The MMX values in the various groups are depicted in
In one case, the model was a composite variable comprised of the weighted sum of the transformed concentrations of each biomarker on the sepsis biomarker panel. In particular: M(n)=Sm Wm*Tm[X(m,n)], where M(n) was the composite variable for patient n. The sum was over all biomarkers (m=1 to 3) in the panel, where Wm is the weight for each biomarker and Tm is a suitable Transfer Function, of which there are many reasonable choices.
In one case the weights of each biomarker on the sepsis biomarker panel were set arbitrarily, for example, Wm˜1. In another case the biomarker weights were determined by standard nominal multinomial logistic regression. To be precise, the logistic regression model fit the following composite variable (LO) using a maximum likelihood method to estimate the regression coefficients (betas): LO(n)=β0+Sm βm*Tm[X(m,n)]). The composite variable LO is equivalent to the predicted log odds, assumed to be a linear fit to the observed log odds. From this one computes M(n)=A*[LO(n)−β0], where A is an arbitrary scaling factor.
In another case a Combinatorial Optimization approach was employed to determine the biomarker weights as well as the parameters of a suitably chosen class of Transfer Functions (see below) to maximize ROC area, or other appropriate objective functions, e.g., specificity at some fixed level of sensitivity, or sensitivity at some fixed level of specificity.
In general, the transfer functions Tm[X] may be arbitrary. They may be chosen based on simple properties of the data, or they may be parameterized and optimized in some way. In one case Tm[X]=Log(X), where X is the concentration of any biomarker. In another case: Tm[X]=0, for X<Lm, Tm[X]=(X−Lm)/(Um−Lm), for Lm<X<Um, and Tm[X]=1, for X>Um, where X is the concentration of biomarker m, Lm is the lower limit (or floor) of the transfer function, and Um is the upper limit (or ceiling) of the transfer function. The transfer function is therefore a linear ramp from 0 to 1 with two range parameters (Lm and Um) that were set specifically for each biomarker on the panel (m=1 to 3). The values of Lm and Um were set to appropriate values within the analytical range of each biomarker assay. For example, Lm may be set to the 5th percentile for biomarker m in the high risk population and Um set to the 95th percentile for biomarker in the low risk population.
In another case one may chose the parameters Lm, Um, and Wm to optimize the value of an appropriate objective function via techniques of Combinatorial Optimization, e.g., simulated annealing, simplex search, etc. The objective function is typically ROC area, or specificity at some fixed level of sensitivity, or sensitivity at some fixed level of specificity, or a combination of these.
The individual marker values, the calculated Multimarker Index value, and certain clinical variables were subjected to ROC analysis for the ability to separate low risk patients from high risk patients. The results are depicted in the following table:
In all cases in the previous table, the ROC area of the Multimarker Index value is significantly higher than that calculated for any of the other parameters listed (p<0.05). When subjected to quartile analysis, the odds ratio for assessment of assigning a prognostic risk of sepsis progression increases in each quartile is significantly (p<0.05) increased (
One skilled in the art readily appreciates that the present invention is well adapted to carry out the objects and obtain the ends and advantages mentioned, as well as those inherent therein. The examples provided herein are representative of preferred embodiments, are exemplary, and are not intended as limitations on the scope of the invention.
It will be readily apparent to a person skilled in the art that varying substitutions and modifications may be made to the invention disclosed herein without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention.
All patents and publications mentioned in the specification are indicative of the levels of those of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. All patents and publications are herein incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each individual publication was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.
The invention illustratively described herein suitably may be practiced in the absence of any element or elements, limitation or limitations which is not specifically disclosed herein. Thus, for example, in each instance herein any of the terms “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” may be replaced with either of the other two terms. The terms and expressions which have been employed are used as terms of description and not of limitation, and there is no intention that in the use of such terms and expressions of excluding any equivalents of the features shown and described or portions thereof, but it is recognized that various modifications are possible within the scope of the invention claimed. Thus, it should be understood that although the present invention has been specifically disclosed by preferred embodiments and optional features, modification and variation of the concepts herein disclosed may be resorted to by those skilled in the art, and that such modifications and variations are considered to be within the scope of this invention as defined by the appended claims.
Other embodiments are set forth within the following claims.
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/543,312 filed Oct. 3, 2006, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C § 119(e) of U.S. Patent Applications Ser. No. 60/723,194, filed Oct. 3, 2005, Ser. No. 60/736,992, filed Nov. 14, 2005, Ser. No. 60/763,830, filed Jan. 31, 2006, Ser. No. 60/801,485, filed May 17, 2006, and Ser. No. 60/831,604, filed Jul. 17, 2006; and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/022,552 filed Dec. 23, 2004, each of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety including all figures and tables.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60831604 | Jul 2006 | US | |
| 60801485 | May 2006 | US | |
| 60763830 | Jan 2006 | US | |
| 60736992 | Nov 2005 | US | |
| 60723194 | Oct 2005 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11543312 | Oct 2006 | US |
| Child | 11690767 | Mar 2007 | US |
| Parent | 11022552 | Dec 2004 | US |
| Child | 11690767 | Mar 2007 | US |
