[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2024261762A2 - Biomarqueurs de fibrose hépatique, de nash et de nash « à risque » et méthodes - Google Patents

Biomarqueurs de fibrose hépatique, de nash et de nash « à risque » et méthodes Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2024261762A2
WO2024261762A2 PCT/IL2024/050607 IL2024050607W WO2024261762A2 WO 2024261762 A2 WO2024261762 A2 WO 2024261762A2 IL 2024050607 W IL2024050607 W IL 2024050607W WO 2024261762 A2 WO2024261762 A2 WO 2024261762A2
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
fibrosis
nash
biomarkers
protein
qsox1
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Pending
Application number
PCT/IL2024/050607
Other languages
English (en)
Other versions
WO2024261762A3 (fr
Inventor
Shira SHAHAM-NIV
Eldad Kepten
Boris SARVIN
Avi Shoshan
Carmel SHOR
Avishai GAVISH
Tomer Shlomi
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Metasight Diagnostics Ltd
Original Assignee
Metasight Diagnostics Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Metasight Diagnostics Ltd filed Critical Metasight Diagnostics Ltd
Publication of WO2024261762A2 publication Critical patent/WO2024261762A2/fr
Publication of WO2024261762A3 publication Critical patent/WO2024261762A3/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Pending legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
    • G01N33/00—Investigating or analysing materials by specific methods not covered by groups G01N1/00 - G01N31/00
    • G01N33/48—Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers
    • G01N33/50—Chemical analysis of biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Testing involving biospecific ligand binding methods; Immunological testing
    • G01N33/68—Chemical analysis of biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Testing involving biospecific ligand binding methods; Immunological testing involving proteins, peptides or amino acids
    • G01N33/6893—Chemical analysis of biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Testing involving biospecific ligand binding methods; Immunological testing involving proteins, peptides or amino acids related to diseases not provided for elsewhere
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
    • G01N2800/00—Detection or diagnosis of diseases
    • G01N2800/08—Hepato-biliairy disorders other than hepatitis
    • G01N2800/085—Liver diseases, e.g. portal hypertension, fibrosis, cirrhosis, bilirubin
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
    • G01N2800/00—Detection or diagnosis of diseases
    • G01N2800/52—Predicting or monitoring the response to treatment, e.g. for selection of therapy based on assay results in personalised medicine; Prognosis
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
    • G01N2800/00—Detection or diagnosis of diseases
    • G01N2800/56—Staging of a disease; Further complications associated with the disease

Definitions

  • Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a major cause of liver illness worldwide, with a global prevalence of up to 30%. It ranges from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), involving inflammation and liver cell damage.
  • NAFLD non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
  • T2D type 2 diabetes mellitus
  • a major complication of NASH is liver fibrosis, which is caused by chronic inflammation. Fibrosis ultimately leads to irreversible scarring of the liver tissue, thus poses significant liver-related risks, including advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Lifestyle modifications, pharmacological therapies, and regular monitoring are key to NAFLD management, addressing its impact on liver health and overall well-being.
  • NASH non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
  • NASH non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
  • at-risk NASH a combined measure of liver fibrosis and NAFLD activity score
  • a liver disease or condition selected from the group consisting of significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, significant fibrosis in combination with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and “at-risk” NASH of a subject having an alcohol consumption below 30 g a day comprising:
  • no more than 5 proteins are analyzed.
  • the liver condition is significant fibrosis.
  • the liver condition is significant fibrosis in combination with NASH.
  • the liver condition is advanced fibrosis.
  • the liver condition is cirrhosis.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and QSOX1.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and ICAM.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and GP5.
  • the increase in the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 above a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of significant liver fibrosis and/or a decrease in the amount of GP5 below a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of significant liver fibrosis.
  • the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 below a predetermined level is indicative of non- significant liver fibrosis and/or the amount of GP5 above a predetermined level is indicative of non- significant liver fibrosis.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprises C7, QSOX1 and GP5.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprises C7, QSOX1 and ICAM.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprises C7, QSOX1, ICAM and GP5.
  • the method further comprises measuring an amount of at least one additional protein selected from the group consisting of: Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10) and vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1).
  • Collectin-10 Collectin-10
  • COLECI 1 collectin-11
  • SRGN serglycin
  • SPARC Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6
  • ADGRG6 Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6
  • PROC vitamin K-dependent Protein C
  • A2M alpha-2-macroglobulin
  • IGFALS insulin-like
  • the subject is pre-diagnosed as having non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
  • NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
  • the subject is pre-diagnosed as having NASH.
  • the subject has type 2 Diabetes.
  • the subject has at least one metabolic syndrome risk factor.
  • the subject has an intermediate FIB- 4 score (1.30 ⁇ FIB-4 ⁇ 2.67).
  • the measuring is effected on the protein level.
  • the measuring is effected on the RNA level.
  • the ruling-in takes into account a clinical parameter of the subject.
  • the clinical parameter is selected from the group consisting of weight, age, HDL cholesterol level, LDL cholesterol level, ALT level, AST level, blood glucose level, blood pressure, HBA1C level, waist circumference, blood lipid level and blood cholesterol level.
  • the diagnosing comprises:
  • the mathematical function comprises a heavier weight of C7 as compared to a weight of QSOX1, ICAM and/or GP5.
  • the pre-determined mathematical function is derived from a machine learning algorithm.
  • at least one treatment selected from the group consisting of Semaglutide, Lanifibranor, Ocaliva, Resmetirom, Saroglitazar, Cotadutide, VK2809, Icosabutate, PXL065, bio89-100, HM15211, MSDC-0602K, Ternl01+501 combo, GSK4532990, HepaStem, ALN-HSD and Efruxifermin, thereby treating the subject.
  • a method of identifying a stage of fibrosis in a patient or stage of fibrosis in combination with NASH or diagnosing NASH or diagnosing “at-risk” NASH patients comprising:
  • determining the concentration of at least two biomarkers in serum from the patient wherein the at least two biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of: complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2- macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1) and vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VC AMI); and (b) determining the stage of fibrosis in the patient or diagnose NASH or diagnosing “at- risk”
  • no more than 5 proteins are analyzed.
  • the subject is male and has an alcohol consumption below 30 g a day or the subject is female and has an alcohol consumption below 20 g a day.
  • the determining the stage of fibrosis in the patient comprises:
  • step (i) inputting the concentration from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score for each stage of fibrosis, or stage of fibrosis in combination with NASH, or for ruling in NASH or for ruling in “at-risk” NASH
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7 and QSOX1.
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7 and GP5.
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7, QSOX1, and GP5.
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7, QSOX1, and ICAM1.
  • the patient is prediagnosed as having nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
  • NAFLD nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
  • the patient is pre-diagnosed as being “at-risk” NASH.
  • the patient has Type 2 Diabetes.
  • the patient has at least one metabolic syndrome risk factor.
  • the patient has an intermediate FIB- 4 score (1.30 ⁇ FIB-4 ⁇ 2.67).
  • the method comprises determining the biomarker concentrations by mass spectrometry, immunoassay or aptamer-based assay.
  • the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
  • the machine learning algorithm is selected from the group consisting of: neural network, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, naive Bayes classifier, k-means clustering, decision tree, gradient boosting, dimensionality reduction, linear regression, logistic regression, and support vector machine.
  • the method comprises administering at least one treatment for liver fibrosis and/or liver steatosis and/or liver inflammation to the patient.
  • the at least one treatment is selected from one or more of Semaglutide, Lanifibranor, Ocaliva, Resmetirom, Saroglitazar, Cotadutide, VK2809, Icosabutate, PXL065, bio89-100, HM15211, MSDC-0602K, Teml01+501 combo, GSK4532990, HepaStem, ALN-HSD, Efruxifermin.
  • biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of: complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2- macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1) and vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VC AMI); and
  • IGFALS isoform 2
  • proteoglycan 4 PRG4
  • PRG4 proteoglycan 4
  • F10 coagulation factor X
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • IAM1 intercellular adhesion molecule-1
  • VC AMI vascular cell adhesion protein 1
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and QSOX1.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and ICAM.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprise C7 and GP5.
  • the at least one protein biomarker comprises C7, QSOX1 and GP5.
  • the at least one protein biomarker comprises C7, QSOX1 and ICAM.
  • the at least two protein biomarkers comprises C7, QSOX1, ICAM and GP5. According to another aspect of the invention there is provided a method of identifying a stage of fibrosis in a patient and determining if the patient has nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
  • NASH At-risk NASH
  • determining the concentration of at least two biomarkers in serum from the patient wherein the at least two biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of: complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2- macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), and vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1); and
  • a method of determining the stage of fibrosis in the patient based on the concentration comprises:
  • step (i) inputting the concentration from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score for each stage of fibrosis, NASH, and for “at-risk” NASH (F> 2 and a NAFLD Activity Score (NAS) > 4);
  • the patient has a NAS > 4.
  • the patient has a NAS ⁇ 4.
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7 and QSOXL
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7 and GP5.
  • the method comprises determining the concentration of C7, QSOX1, and GP5.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for “at-risk” NASH is from about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for significant fibrosis is from about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for advanced fibrosis is about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for cirrhosis is about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for “at-risk” NASH is 0.25.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for significant fibrosis is 0.21
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for advanced fibrosis is 0.25
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for cirrhosis is 0.52.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for significant fibrosis is 0.13
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for advanced fibrosis is 0.17
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for cirrhosis is 0.43.
  • the patient has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
  • NAFLD nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
  • the patient is with high NAS and considered “at-risk” NASH.
  • the patient has Type 2 Diabetes.
  • the patient has an intermediate FIB- 4 score.
  • the biomarker is protein
  • the method comprises determining the biomarker concentrations by mass spectrometry, immunoassay or aptamer-based assay.
  • the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
  • the machine learning algorithm is selected from the group consisting of: neural network, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, naive Bayes classifier, k-means clustering, decision tree, gradient boosting, dimensionality reduction, linear regression, logistic regression, and support vector machine.
  • the method comprises administering at least one treatment for fibrosis to the patient.
  • the at least one treatment for fibrosis and “at-risk” NASH is selected from one or more of Semaglutide, Lanifibranor, Ocaliva, Resmetirom, Saroglitazar, Cotadutide, VK2809, Icosabutate, PXL065, bio89-100, HM15211, MSDC-0602K, Teml01+501 combo, GSK4532990, HepaStem, ALN-HSD, Efruxifermin or any other drug currently approved for other indication and/or in development for treating fibrosis and/or inflammation.
  • Figs. 1A-G show the protein intensity of the biomarkers as measured by Mass spectrometry, COLIO (Fig. 1A), C7 (Fig. IB), QSOX1 (Fig. 1C), VCAM1 (Fig. ID), A2M (Fig. IE), GP5 (Fig. IF), and ICAM1 (Fig. 1G) by fibrosis stage.
  • Fig. 1H shows fibrosis stage by patient age.
  • Figs. 2A-J shows that diagnosing "at-risk” NASH by a two component biomarker signatures comprising of (a) C7 and QSOX1 and (b) C7 and ICAM1 were superior to FIB -4 score, in the discovery cohort (train and test set, and full cohort) and in validation cohorts 1 and 2.
  • Fig. 2A-E shows superiority of C7 and QSOX1 model for diagnosing "at-risk” NASH in the discovery cohort (train and test set, and full cohort) and in validation cohorts 1 and 2.
  • Fig. 2F-J shows superiority of C7 and ICAM1 model for diagnosing "at-risk” NASH in the discovery cohort (train and test set, and full cohort) and in validation cohorts 1 and 2.
  • Figs. 3A-G shows that determining fibrosis stage by a two component biomarker signatures comprising of (a) C7, and GP5, and (b) C7 and ICAM (referred to as the “MS-LFS model” or “Model”) were superior to determining fibrosis stage by the FIB-4 score,
  • Fig. 3A-3B shows superiority of the models for diagnosing significant fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3C-3D shows superiority of the models for diagnosing advanced fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3E-3F shows superiority of the models for diagnosing cirrhosis.
  • Fig. 3A-3B shows superiority of the models for diagnosing significant fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3C-3D shows superiority of the models for diagnosing advanced fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3E-3F shows superiority of the models for diagnosing cirrhosis.
  • FIG. 4A-K shows superiority of the C7 and GP5 model for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis in the real- world patient cohort
  • FIGs. 4A-K shows that diagnosing "at-risk” and determining fibrosis stage by a three component biomarker signatures comprising of (a) C7, QSOX1, and GP5, and (b) C7, QSOX1 and ICAM1 (referred to as the “MS-LFS model” or “Model”) were superior to determining fibrosis stage by the FIB-4 score.
  • the MS-LFS model or “Model”
  • FIG. 4C-4D shows superiority of the MS-LFS models for diagnosing “at-risk” NASH NIMBLE.
  • Fig. 4E-4F shows superiority of the MS-LFS models for diagnosing significant fibrosis.
  • Fig. 4G-4H shows superiority of the MS-LFS models for diagnosing advanced fibrosis.
  • Fig. 4L4J shows superiority of the MS-LFS models for diagnosing cirrhosis.
  • Fig. 4K shows superiority of the C7, QSOX1, and GP5 model for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis cirrhosis in the real- world patient cohort.
  • Figs. 5A-B show that a two component biomarker signatures comprising of (a) C7 and QSOX1, and (b) C7 and ICAM1, described in Example 2 outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (FIB-4, BARD, and NFS) and perform similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4), for diagnosing “at- risk” NASH.
  • Fig. 5A shows that the models are superior to other scoring systems for diagnosing patients with an intermediate FIB-4 score.
  • Fig. 5B shows the superiority of the models for diagnosing “at-risk” NASH in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D).
  • Figs. 6A-B show that the MS-LFS model described in Example 4 is significant superior to FIB-4, BARD, and NFS scoring systems for diagnosing fibrosis stage.
  • Fig. 6A shows that the MS-LFS model is superior to other scoring systems for diagnosing patients with an intermediate FIB-4 score.
  • Fig. 6B shows the superiority of the model for diagnosing fibrosis stage in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D).
  • T2D Type 2 Diabetes
  • Figs. 7A-B show that the MS-LFS models described in Example 4 outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (FIB-4, BARD and NFS) and perform similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4), for diagnosing at risk” NASH” and fibrosis stages.
  • Fig. 7A shows that the MS-LFS models are superior to other scoring systems for diagnosing patients with an intermediate FIB-4 score.
  • Fig. 7B shows the superiority of the models for diagnosing fibrosis stage in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D).
  • T2D Type 2 Diabetes
  • Fig. 8 show that the MS-LFS model described in Example 4, C7, QSOX1 and ICAM1, outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (FIB-4, ELF and FibroTest) for monitoring patients’ fibrosis stage.
  • the present disclosure provides methods of diagnosing a patient with a fibrosis stage, NASH and “at-risk” NASH.
  • the methods provided herein are more sensitive and specific than known methods of diagnosing patients with a stage of fibrosis (see Figs. 3A-3G, 4E-4K, 6A- 6B, 7A-7B and Tables 5 and 6a) and “at-risk” NASH (Figs. 2, 4A-4D and 5A-5B, 7A-7B and Table 4 and 6B). These methods are also noninvasive and thus less risky to the patient.
  • the methods allow for identification of fibrosis, NASH and “at-risk” NASH patients, enabling timely treatment and improve patient clinical management.
  • At least one and “one or more” are used interchangeably to mean that the article may include one or more than one of the listed elements.
  • the term “about” refers to plus or minus 10% of the referenced number unless otherwise stated or otherwise evident by the context, and except where such a range would exceed 100 % of a possible value, or fall below 0 % of a possible value.
  • biomarker refers to a protein, metabolite, or a lipid that serves as an indicator for a disease/condition.
  • cutoff value refers to a numerical value used to distinguish between two or more stages of fibrosis, diagnose NASH and “at-risk” NASH.
  • FIB-4 score refers to a score calculated according to the following formula: (Age x AST Level) / ((Platelet Count (10 9 /L)) x (the square root of ALT Level)). “Age” in the formula is the patient’ s age in years. AST Level refers to the level of aspartate aminotransferase in serum of U/L. ALT Level refers to the level of alanine transaminase in serum of U/L. Patients who are in an “intermediate range of FIB-4” exhibit a FIB-4 score that is greater than 1.3 and less than 2.67.
  • NAFLD Activity Score refers to a score calculated by adding together the individual scores of steatosis (score 0-3), lobular inflammation (score 0-3), and hepatocyte ballooning (score 0-2).
  • the NAS Score ranges from 0 to 8.
  • the NAS Score is described in the following document, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety: Kleiner DE et al. (2005) Hepatology 41:1313-1321. II. Biomarkers for Diagnosing Fibrosis Stage, NASH and “at-risk” NASH patients
  • biomarkers for diagnosing fibrosis stage, NASH, and “at-risk” NASH are used to diagnose fibrosis stage and identify patients with NASH and “at-risk” NASH in patients with NAFLD and/or high-risk NAFLD (e.g. intermediate range of FIB-4, T2D).
  • the biomarkers are used to diagnose fibrosis with/without high NAFLD activity score (> 4) or NASH.
  • the fibrosis stage indicates the extent of liver scarring.
  • the classification of fibrosis stages in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is as follows.
  • the fibrosis stage may be staged according to the METAVIR or Ishak or NASH Clinical Research Network (CRN) classification system scoring systems, which categorize fibrosis levels into several stages to indicate the extent of liver scarring. Unless otherwise stated, particular fibrosis stages described herein refer to the stages identified by the METAVIR scoring system or NASH Clinical Research Network (CRN) classification system. According to this system, a fibrosis stage (“F”) of 0 (also referred to as “FO”) indicates no fibrosis or scarring. A fibrosis stage of 1 (also referred to as “Fl”) represents minimal fibrosis limited to the portal areas.
  • F fibrosis stage
  • FO NASH Clinical Research Network
  • a fibrosis stage of 2 indicates increased fibrosis extending beyond the portal areas.
  • a fibrosis stage of 3 (also referred to as “F3”) denotes significant fibrosis with numerous septa but without cirrhosis.
  • a fibrosis stage of 4 (also referred to as “F4”) represents cirrhosis with extensive scarring and liver dysfunction.
  • F0-F1 fibrosis
  • F1-F2 mild fibrosis
  • F4 cirrhosis
  • F3 Advanced fibrosis
  • F4 cirrhosis
  • a smaller proportion of individuals with NAFLD may progress to advanced fibrosis, the risk increases with certain factors such as older age, obesity, diabetes, and presence of NASH.
  • Fibrosis progression in NAFLD is not linear and can be influenced by various factors, including lifestyle modifications, treatment interventions, and management of underlying metabolic conditions.
  • the biomarkers are used to diagnose fibrosis stage and/or identify NASH and “at-risk” NASH patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
  • the biomarkers for diagnosing NASH and/or fibrosis stage can be utilized to identify individuals at higher risk of fibrosis progression, with/without high NAFLD activity score, and to provide appropriate care and intervention.
  • the biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2- macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1).
  • the biomarker may be Intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM-1).
  • ICM-1 Intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • from 2 to 10 biomarkers, from 3 to 10 biomarkers, from 4 to 10 biomarkers, from 5 to 10 biomarkers, from 6 to 10 biomarkers, from 7 to 10 biomarkers, from 2 to 5 biomarkers, from 3 to 5 biomarkers, or from 4 to 5 biomarkers are used to diagnose fibrosis stage, NASH and “at-risk” NASH.
  • one or more, two or more, or three or more biomarkers are used to diagnose fibrosis stage, NASH and “at-risk” NASH.
  • C7 and QSOX1, C7 and ICAM1 are used to diagnose “at-risk” NASH patients
  • C7 and GP5, and C7 and ICAM1 are used to diagnose fibrosis stage.
  • C7, QSOX1, and GP5, and C7, QSOX1 and ICAM1 are used to diagnose “at-risk” NASH patients and/or determine fibrosis stage.
  • kits for identifying a stage of fibrosis with/without NASH and/or NAFLD activity score > 4 in a patient comprising: (a) determining the concentration of at least two biomarkers in serum from the patient, wherein the at least two biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of: complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1); and (b) determining the stage of fibrosis in the patient based on the concentration of the at least two biomarkers, and identify NASH and “at-risk” NASH patients.
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • IAM1 intercellular adhesion molecule-1
  • the stage of fibrosis is F0, Fl, F2, F3, or F4.
  • “at- risk” NASH patients are defined as having biopsy-confirmed NASH, a NAFLD activity score (NAS) > 4 with at least 1 point in each one of the NAS components, and F > 2 with exclusion of cirrhotic patients.
  • “At risk” NASH NIMBLE definition includes also exclusion of patients with F0-F1 and NAS > 4, F > 2 and NAS ⁇ 4, and cirrhotic patients. The stages of fibrosis are described in Section II of this document.
  • the subject being diagnosed is typically a human subject.
  • the subject is male. In another embodiment the subject is female.
  • the subject is an adult male.
  • the subject has an alcohol consumption below 30 g a day.
  • the subject is a female subject and has an alcohol consumption below 20 g a day.
  • the subject is pre-diagnosed as having non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
  • NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
  • the subject is prediagnosed as having NASH.
  • the subject is pre-diagnosed as having type 2 Diabetes.
  • the subject may have at least one metabolic syndrome risk factor.
  • Exemplary metabolic syndrome risk factors include, but are not limited to obesity and/or high waist circumference (e.g. BMI>30, and/or of waist circumference > 40 inches in men and > 35 inches in women), elevated blood glucose levels and/or T2D (e.g. fasting blood glucose > 100 mg/dL or >125 and/or HbAlC>6% or HbAlC>6.5%), hypertriglyceridemia and/or low levels of HDL cholesterol (e.g. either: Triglycerides>150 mg/dl or HDL: ⁇ 40mg/dl in men and ⁇ 50mg/dl in women), hypertension (e.g. systolic blood pressure > 130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure > 85 mmHg).
  • BMI waist circumference
  • T2D e.g. fasting blood glucose > 100 mg/dL or >125 and/or HbAlC>6% or HbAlC>6.5%
  • the age of the subject may be between 40-80 years old.
  • the method is for ruling in significant fibrosis based on the level of at least two or three protein biomarkers selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM) and platelet glycoprotein V (GP5).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • IAM intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • An increase in the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 above a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of significant liver fibrosis and/or a decrease in the amount of GP5 below a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of significant liver fibrosis.
  • the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 when the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 is below a predetermined level, it is indicative of non- significant liver fibrosis and/or when the amount of GP5 is above a predetermined level, it is indicative of non- significant liver fibrosis.
  • the method is for ruling in significant fibrosis in combination with NASH based on the level of at least two or three protein biomarkers selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM) and platelet glycoprotein V (GP5).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • IAM intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • the method is for ruling in “at-risk” NASH based on the level of at least two or three protein biomarkers selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM) and platelet glycoprotein V (GP5).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • IAM intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • An increase in the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 above a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of “at-risk “NASH and/or a decrease in the amount of GP5 below a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of “at-risk” NASH.
  • the method is for ruling in advanced fibrosis based on the level of at least two or three protein biomarkers selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM) and platelet glycoprotein V (GP5).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • IAM intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • An increase in the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 above a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of advanced liver fibrosis and/or a decrease in the amount of GP5 below a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of advanced liver fibrosis.
  • the method is for ruling in cirrhosis based on the level of at least two or three protein biomarkers selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 (ICAM) and platelet glycoprotein V (GP5).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • IAM intercellular adhesion molecule- 1
  • GP5 platelet glycoprotein V
  • An increase in the amount of C7, ICAM or QSOX1 above a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of cirrhosis and/or a decrease in the amount of GP5 below a predetermined level as compared to an amount in a control sample is indicative of cirrhosis.
  • Additional protein markers may be used in order to stage the fibrosis (e.g. rule in significant fibrosis) including but not limited to:
  • Collectin- 10 (COLIO), collectin- 11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor- binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10) and vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1).
  • COLIO collectin- 11
  • SRGN serglycin
  • SPARC Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6
  • PROC vitamin K-dependent Protein C
  • A2M alpha-2-macroglobulin
  • IGFALS insulin-like growth factor- binding protein complex acid labile subunit
  • PRG4 proteoglycan 4
  • F10 coagulation factor X
  • VCAM1 vascular cell adhesion protein 1
  • the predetermined level is the amount (i.e. level) of biomarkers in a control sample derived from one or more subjects who do not have liver fibrosis and/or not suspected of having a liver fibrosis (e.g., healthy individuals).
  • such subjects are monitored and/or periodically retested for a diagnostically relevant period of time (“longitudinal studies”) following such test to verify continued absence of fibrosis.
  • Such period of time may be one week, two weeks, two to five months, five months, five to ten months, ten months, or ten or more months from the initial testing date for determination of the reference value.
  • retrospective measurement of biomarkers in properly banked historical subject samples may be used in establishing these reference values, thus shortening the study time required.
  • a predetermined level can also comprise the amounts of biomarkers derived from subjects who show an improvement as a result of treatments and/or therapies for the fibrosis.
  • a predetermined level can also comprise the amounts of biomarkers derived from subjects who have confirmed non- significant fibrosis by known techniques.
  • a fibrosis reference value index value is the mean or median concentrations of that biomarker in a statistically significant number of subjects having been diagnosed as having non-significant fibrosis.
  • the predetermined level is an index value or a baseline value.
  • An index value or baseline value is a composite sample of an effective amount of biomarkers from one or more subjects who do not have significant fibrosis.
  • a baseline value can also comprise the amounts of biomarkers in a sample derived from a subject who has shown an improvement in treatments or therapies for the fibrosis.
  • the amounts of biomarkers are similarly calculated and compared to the index value.
  • subjects identified as having a significant fibrosis are chosen to receive a therapeutic regimen to slow the progression or eliminate the fibrosis.
  • the amount of the biomarker can be measured in a test sample and compared to the “normal control level,” utilizing techniques such as reference limits, discrimination limits, or risk defining thresholds to define cutoff points and abnormal values.
  • the “normal control level” means the level of one or more biomarkers or combined biomarker indices typically found in a subject not suffering from significant fibrosis. Such normal control level and cutoff points may vary based on whether a biomarker is used alone or in a formula combining with other biomarkers into an index. Alternatively, the normal control level can be a database of biomarker patterns from previously tested subjects.
  • Some protein biomarkers may exhibit trends that depends on the patient age (e.g. the population baseline may rise or fall as a function of age).
  • age dependent normalization, stratification or distinct mathematical formulas can be used to improve the accuracy of biomarkers for differentiating between different types of infections.
  • one skilled in the art can generate a function that fits the population mean levels of each biomarker as function of age and use it to normalize the biomarker of individual subjects levels across different ages.
  • Another example is to stratify subjects according to their age and determine age specific cutoff values or index values for each age group independently.
  • Subjects may be stratified according to additional parameters including but not limited to weight (e.g., BMI), age, HDL cholesterol level, LDL cholesterol level, liver enzymes (e.g. ALT level, AST level), blood glucose level, blood pressure, HBA1C level, waist circumference, blood lipid level and blood cholesterol level.
  • the concentration level of QSOX1 is about 1.19 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having significant fibrosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • a subject is ruled in as having advanced fibrosis.
  • the concentration level of QSOX1 is about 1.28 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having Cirrhosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • a subject is ruled in as having significant fibrosis.
  • a subject is ruled in as having advanced fibrosis.
  • concentration level of ICAM1 when the concentration level of ICAM1 is about 1.27 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having Cirrhosis.
  • concentration level of C7 when the concentration level of C7 is about 1.57 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having significant fibrosis.
  • the concentration level of C7 is about 1.7 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having advanced fibrosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • concentration level of C7 when the concentration level of C7 is about 2 fold higher than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having Cirrhosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • concentration level of GP5 when the concentration level of GP5 is about 0.81 fold lower than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having significant fibrosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • concentration level of GP5 when the concentration level of GP5 is about 0.74 fold lower than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having advanced fibrosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • concentration level of GP5 when the concentration level of GP5 is about 0.54 fold lower than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as having Cirrhosis.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • ruling in significant fibrosis indicates that the fibrosis of the subject is at a stage beyond mild fibrosis (F0-F1).
  • ruling in significant fibrosis rules out that the fibrosis is beyond mild fibrosis but has not reached the stage of advanced fibrosis.
  • ruling in significant fibrosis rules out that the fibrosis is beyond mild fibrosis but has not reached the stage of cirrhosis.
  • a subject when the concentration of QSOX1 is 1.22 fold higher than a predetermined level, (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as being “at-risk” NASH.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • a subject when the concentration of ICAM is 1.33 fold higher than a predetermined level, (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as being “at-risk” NASH.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • a subject when the concentration of C7 is 1.35 fold higher than a predetermined level, (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is ruled in as being “at-risk” NASH.
  • a predetermined level e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients
  • concentration level of GP5 when the concentration level of GP5 is about 0.84 fold lower than a predetermined level (e.g. average level in mild fibrosis patients), a subject is being “at risk” NASH.
  • the concentration of each biomarker is determined by immunoassay or mass spectrometry. In embodiments, the concentration of each biomarker is measured in arbitrary units as compared to a standardized control sample. In embodiments, the concentration of each biomarker is measured in absolute concentrations.
  • Blood samples can be obtained under standard conditions.
  • the serum is stored for from about 1 day to about 5 years before the concentration of each biomarker is measured.
  • the blood sample comprises serum.
  • the blood sample comprises plasma.
  • the blood sample is whole blood.
  • the serum is stored at a temperature ranging from about -80 °C for up to 5 years and about 30 °C for up to 2 days or even 7 days.
  • the method comprises (i) inputting the concentration from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score; (ii) comparing the score to a predetermined cutoff value; and (iii) determining the stage of fibrosis based on comparison between the score and a predetermined cutoff value.
  • the patient is diagnosed with the fibrosis stage.
  • the predetermined cutoff value for cirrhosis is 0.8
  • a patient with a score of greater than 0.8 is diagnosed with cirrhosis.
  • a patient with a later fibrosis stage also has an earlier fibrosis stage.
  • a patient with advanced fibrosis (F3) also has significant fibrosis (F2).
  • the algorithm uses the concentration of C7 and at least one of QSOX1, ICAM and/or GP5 to determine a score.
  • the weight of C7 in the algorithm is heavier than the weight of QSOX1, ICAM and/or GP5.
  • the following algorithm is used to generate a score for ruling in “at-risk” NASH.
  • the following algorithm is used to generate a score for ruling in significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis respectively.
  • the following algorithm is used to generate a score for ruling in “at-risk” NASH, significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.
  • the predetermined cutoff for the predictor may be set according to the required sensitivity and specificity of the predictor.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for at risk of NASH is from about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for significant fibrosis is from about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for advanced fibrosis is from about 0.1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween.
  • the pre-determined cutoff value for cirrhosis is from about 0. 1 to about 0.95, including all values and subranges therebetween.
  • the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
  • the machine learning algorithm splits patient data into test and train sets, scales measured quantities, trains on a train set, tuning the algorithm and biomarker selection through cross validation.
  • the resulting algorithm may be applied to the hold-out test set.
  • the machine learning algorithm is selected from the group consisting of: neural network, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, naive Bayes classifier, k-means clustering, decision tree, gradient boosting, dimensionality reduction, linear regression, logistic regression, and support vector machine.
  • the algorithm may be applied to another independent validation cohort of patients, obtained in similar or different means to test the validity of the algorithm.
  • the method which includes measurement of differential concentration of the at least two (e.g., at least 3, at least 4, at least 5, at least 6, at least 7, at least 8, at least 9, or at least 10) protein biomarkers detect fibrosis stages, NASH and “at-risk” NASH with a sensitivity of at least 75%, at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 99%; and a specificity of at least 75%, at least 90%, at least 95% or at least 99% (Table 7a-b).
  • the method includes measurement of no more than 10, no more than 9, no more than 8, no more than 7, no more than 6, no more than 5 or no more than 4 protein or no more than 3 biomarkers or no more than 2 biomarkers.
  • the concentration of no more than 10, no more than 9, no more than 8, no more than 7, no more than 6, no more than 5 or no more than 4 protein or no more than 3 biomarkers or no more than 2 biomarkers are taken into account when staging the fibrosis.
  • the method can be applied to patient previously diagnosed with fibrosis to reassess their current fibrosis stage. In embodiments, the method is applied to determine the fibrosis state of a patient with an unknown fibrosis stage. In embodiments, the method is used to determine (i.e. rule-in) if a patient has NASH or “at-risk” NASH or significant fibrosis or significant fibrosis in combination with NASH or advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. In embodiments, the method is used to monitor the progression of a patient’s fibrosis. A score may be obtained at two different time points and the difference between the later score and the earlier score is indicative of the progression or regression of the disease.
  • the first time point is carried out when the patient is healthy. In another embodiment, the first time point is carried out when the patient has already been diagnosed as having or suspected of having liver fibrosis.
  • the method is used to monitor patients with a fibrosis stage of less than 4 who are later identified as cirrhotic. In embodiments, the method is used to confirm the fibrosis stage that has already been determined by biopsy, the analysis of electronic health records, or any other means. In embodiments, the method can be applied to patient has an intermediate FIB -4 score (1.30 ⁇ FIB -4 ⁇ 2.67).
  • the clinical features are measured simultaneously (within one day) of determining the concentration of a biomarker. In embodiments, the clinical features are measured before determining the concentration of a biomarker. In embodiments, the clinical features are measured after determining the concentration of a biomarker. In embodiments, the clinical features are measured within six months (before or after) of determining the concentration of a biomarker.
  • the methods described herein are superior to other methods for determining fibrosis stage and “at-risk” NASH.
  • the methods are superior to clinical scores (e.g., FIB-4, BARD and NFS) and performs similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4).
  • MS- LFS scores outperforms commercially available protein biomarkers-based tests, ELF® and FibroTest®. In some indications the test performs significantly better than alternatives and, in some indications, significance cannot be shown (but the test’s mean estimator of performance is higher for the diagnostic test).
  • the methods of diagnosing fibrosis stage and “at-risk” NASH are superior to alternative methods for diagnosing fibrosis stage and “at-risk” NASH in patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
  • fibrosis e.g. significant fibrosis
  • at-risk NASH
  • the treatment for fibrosis is selected from one or more of Semaglutide, Lanifibranor, Ocaliva, Resmetirom, Saroglitazar, Cotadutide, VK2809, Icosabutate, PXL065, bio89-100, HM15211, MSDC-0602K, Ternl01+501 combo, GSK4532990, HepaStem, ALN- HSD, Efruxifermin, or any other drug currently approved for other indication and/or in development for treating fibrosis and/or inflammation.
  • test/procedures for fibrosis, NASH and “at-risk” NASH is biopsy, abdominal imaging (e.g. CT, US, Fibroscan, MRE), endoscopy, blood tests (e.g. alpha fetoprotein, hepatitis B Ag/Ab, hepatitis C Ag/Ab).
  • abdominal imaging e.g. CT, US, Fibroscan, MRE
  • endoscopy e.g. alpha fetoprotein, hepatitis B Ag/Ab, hepatitis C Ag/Ab.
  • kits are provided for diagnosing fibrosis, NASH and “at-risk” NASH using the biomarkers described herein (see Section II).
  • the kits comprise reagents for detecting at least two, at least three, at least four, at least five, at least six, at least seven, at least eight, at least nine, or at least 10 biomarkers.
  • kits comprise reagents for detecting no more than two, no more than three, no more than four, no more than five, no more than six, no more than seven, no more than eight, no more than nine, or no more than 10 biomarkers.
  • the protein biomarkers can be detected in any suitable manner but are typically detected by contacting a sample from the subject with an antibody, which binds the biomarker and then detecting the presence or absence of a reaction product.
  • the antibody may be monoclonal, polyclonal, chimeric, or a fragment of the foregoing, as discussed in detail above, and the step of detecting the reaction product may be carried out with any suitable immunoassay.
  • Immunoassays carried out in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention may be homogeneous assays or heterogeneous assays.
  • the immunological reaction usually involves the specific antibody (e.g., anti- biomarker antibody), a labeled analyte, and the sample of interest.
  • the signal arising from the label is modified, directly or indirectly, upon the binding of the antibody to the labeled analyte.
  • Both the immunological reaction and detection of the extent thereof can be carried out in a homogeneous solution.
  • Immunochemical labels which may be employed, include free radicals, radioisotopes, fluorescent dyes, enzymes, bacteriophages, or coenzymes.
  • the reagents are usually the sample, the antibody, and means for producing a detectable signal.
  • Samples as described above may be used.
  • the antibody can be immobilized on a support, such as a bead (such as protein A and protein G agarose beads), plate or slide, and contacted with the specimen suspected of containing the antigen in a liquid phase.
  • the support is then separated from the liquid phase and either the support phase or the liquid phase is examined for a detectable signal employing means for producing such signal.
  • the signal is related to the presence of the analyte in the sample.
  • Means for producing a detectable signal include the use of radioactive labels, fluorescent labels, or enzyme labels.
  • an antibody which binds to that site can be conjugated to a detectable group and added to the liquid phase reaction solution before the separation step.
  • the presence of the detectable group on the solid support indicates the presence of the antigen in the test sample.
  • suitable immunoassays are oligonucleotides, immunoblotting, immunofluorescence methods, immunoprecipitation, chemiluminescence methods, electrochemiluminescence (ECL) or enzyme-linked immunoassays.
  • Antibodies can also be useful for detecting post-translational modifications of biomarker proteins, polypeptides, mutations, and polymorphisms, such as tyrosine phosphorylation, threonine phosphorylation, serine phosphorylation, glycosylation (e.g., O- GlcNAc).
  • Such antibodies specifically detect the phosphorylated amino acids in a protein or proteins of interest, and can be used in immunoblotting, immunofluorescence, and ELISA assays described herein. These antibodies are well-known to those skilled in the art, and commercially available.
  • Post-translational modifications can also be determined using metastable ions in reflector matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) (Wirth U. and Muller D. 2002).
  • MALDI-TOF reflector matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry
  • the activities can be determined in vitro using enzyme assays known in the art.
  • enzyme assays include, without limitation, kinase assays, phosphatase assays, reductase assays, among many others.
  • Modulation of the kinetics of enzyme activities can be determined by measuring the rate constant KM using known algorithms, such as the Hill plot, Michaelis- Menten equation, linear regression plots such as Lineweaver-Burk analysis, and Scatchard plot.
  • the kit for immunoassay comprises antibodies specific for at least two, at least three, at least four, at least five, at least six, at least seven, at least eight, at least nine, or at least 10 biomarkers.
  • kits comprise no more than two, no more than three, no more than four, no more than five, no more than six, no more than seven, no more than eight, no more than nine, or no more than 10 antibodies.
  • kits comprise labeled secondary antibodies, which can bind to antibodies that bind the biomarkers described herein (and as shown as an example in Table 1).
  • the disclosed immunoassay measurement kits may include a dilution solution, assay buffer solution, substrate solution, and stop solution for performing measurements.
  • the kit for mass spectrometry-based protein measurements comprises at least two, at least three, at least four, at least five, at least six, at least seven, at least eight, at least nine, or at least 10 synthetic proteins for quantification of biomarkers.
  • kits for mass spectrometry-based protein measurements may further include all standards and reagents for monitoring of the system performance, alkylation solutions, digesting solutions, analytical columns, dilution buffers, running buffers and stop solutions for performing measurements.
  • antibodies and/or aptamers are attached to an array, such as a biochip, lateral flow device, or dipstick.
  • the array includes other aptamers or antibodies that serve as negative or positive controls.
  • the kit includes antibodies and/or aptamers and/or primers, probes, or antibodies that recognize at least two biomarkers described herein.
  • the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to the biomarker selected from the group consisting of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factor- binding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1), and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • SRGN Collectin-10
  • SRGN
  • the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7 and QSOX1. In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7 and GP5. In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7 and ICAM1. In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7, QSOX1, and GP5. In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7, QSOX1, and ICAM1.
  • the kit comprises antibodies that bind to C7 and QSOXL In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7 and ICAML In embodiments, the kit comprises antibodies that bind to C7 and GP5. In embodiments, the kit comprises antibodies that bind to C7, QSOX1, and GP5. In embodiments, the kit comprises aptamers that bind specifically to C7, QSOX1, and ICAML
  • the kit comprises synthetic proteins for measuring absolute concentration of one or more of complement component C7 (C7), sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (QSOX1), Collectin-10 (COLIO), collectin-11 (COLECI 1) isoform 10, serglycin (SRGN), SPARC, Adhesion G-protein coupled receptor G6 (ADGRG6) isoform 2, vitamin K-dependent Protein C (PROC) isoform 2, alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M), insulin-like growth factorbinding protein complex acid labile subunit (IGFALS) isoform 2, proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) isoform 6, coagulation factor X (F10), platelet glycoprotein V (GP5), vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM1), and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1).
  • C7 complement component C7
  • QSOX1 sulfhydryl oxidase 1
  • SRGN Collectin-10
  • SRGN collectin-11
  • SPARC Adhe
  • Measurements of effective amounts of the biomarkers of the invention and/or the resulting evaluation of risk from those biomarkers can be implemented in computer programs executing on programmable computers, comprising, inter alia, a processor, a data storage system (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device.
  • Program code can be applied to input data to perform the functions described above and generate output information.
  • the output information can be applied to one or more output devices, according to methods known in the art.
  • the computer may be, for example, a personal computer, microcomputer, or workstation of conventional design.
  • Each program can be implemented in a high level procedural or object oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. However, the programs can be implemented in assembly or machine language, if desired. The language can be a compiled or interpreted language. Each such computer program can be stored on a storage media or device (e.g., ROM or magnetic diskette or others as defined elsewhere in this disclosure) readable by a general or special purpose programmable computer, for configuring and operating the computer when the storage media or device is read by the computer to perform the procedures described herein.
  • a storage media or device e.g., ROM or magnetic diskette or others as defined elsewhere in this disclosure
  • the health-related data management system used in some aspects of the invention may also be considered to be implemented as a computer-readable storage medium, configured with a computer program, where the storage medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner to perform various functions described herein.
  • the protein markers of the present invention in some embodiments thereof, can be used to generate a “reference biomarker profile” of those subjects who do not have fibrosis (e.g. significant fibrosis).
  • the biomarkers disclosed herein can also be used to generate a “subject biomarker profile” taken from subjects who have fibrosis (e.g. significant fibrosis).
  • the subject biomarker profiles can be compared to a reference biomarker profile to diagnose or identify subjects with fibrosis.
  • the subject biomarker profile of different fibrosis stages can be compared to diagnose or identify a stage of fibrosis or to diagnose NASH or at risk-NASH.
  • the reference and subject biomarker profiles of the present invention can be contained in a machine-readable medium, such as but not limited to, analog tapes like those readable by a VCR, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, USB flash media, among others.
  • a machine-readable medium such as but not limited to, analog tapes like those readable by a VCR, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, USB flash media, among others.
  • Such machine-readable media can also contain additional test results, such as, without limitation, measurements of clinical parameters and traditional laboratory risk factors.
  • the machine-readable media can also comprise subject information such as medical history and any relevant family history.
  • the machine-readable media can also contain information relating to other disease-risk algorithms and computed indices such as those described herein.
  • the performance and thus absolute and relative clinical usefulness of the invention may be assessed in multiple ways as noted above.
  • some aspects of the invention are intended to provide accuracy in clinical diagnosis and prognosis.
  • the accuracy of a diagnostic or prognostic test, assay, or method concerns the ability of the test, assay, or method to rule in significant fibrosis, rule in NASH or at-risk NASH or staging of liver fibrosis is based on whether the subjects have, a “significant alteration” (e.g., clinically significant and diagnostically significant) in the levels of a biomarker.
  • an appropriate number of biomarkers which may be one or more
  • a “significant alteration” e.g., level of expression or activity of a biomarker
  • the difference in the level of biomarker is preferably statistically significant.
  • achieving statistical significance and thus the preferred analytical, diagnostic, and clinical accuracy, may require that combinations of several biomarkers be used together in panels and combined with mathematical algorithms in order to achieve a statistically significant biomarker index.
  • AUC area under the ROC curve
  • predetermined level of predictability it is meant that the method provides an acceptable level of clinical or diagnostic accuracy.
  • an “acceptable degree of diagnostic accuracy”, is herein defined as a test or assay (such as the test used in some aspects of the invention for determining the clinically significant presence of biomarkers, which thereby indicates the presence an infection type) in which the AUC (area under the ROC curve for the test or assay) is at least 0.60, desirably at least 0.65, more desirably at least 0.70, preferably at least 0.75, more preferably at least 0.80, and most preferably at least 0.85.
  • a “very high degree of diagnostic accuracy” it is meant a test or assay in which the AUC (area under the ROC curve for the test or assay) is at least 0.75, 0.80, desirably at least 0.85, more desirably at least 0.875, preferably at least 0.90, more preferably at least 0.925, and most preferably at least 0.95.
  • the methods predict the presence or absence of fibrosis or stage of fibrosis or response to therapy with at least 75% total accuracy, more preferably 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99% or greater total accuracy.
  • the methods predict the presence of fibrosis or stage of fibrosis or response to therapy with at least 75% sensitivity, more preferably 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99% or greater sensitivity.
  • the methods predict the presence of “at-risk” NASH or response to NASH therapy with at least 75% specificity, more preferably 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99% or greater specificity.
  • the methods may be used to rule in significant fibrosis with at least 75% NPV, more preferably 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99% or greater NPV.
  • the methods rule in NASH or “at risk” NASH with at least 50% PPV, more preferably 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99% or greater PPV.
  • the methods rule in significant fibrosis, NASH or “at-risk” NASH or response to therapy with an MCC larger than 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0.
  • diagnostic accuracy In general, alternative methods of determining diagnostic accuracy are commonly used for continuous measures, when a disease category has not yet been clearly defined by the relevant medical societies and practice of medicine, where thresholds for therapeutic use are not yet established, or where there is no existing gold standard for diagnosis of the pre-disease.
  • measures of diagnostic accuracy for a calculated index are typically based on curve fit and calibration between the predicted continuous value and the actual observed values (or a historical index calculated value) and utilize measures such as R squared, Hosmer- Lemeshow P-value statistics and confidence intervals.
  • the degree of diagnostic accuracy i.e., cut points on a ROC curve
  • defining an acceptable AUC value determining the acceptable ranges in relative concentration of what constitutes an effective amount of the biomarkers of the invention allows for one of skill in the art to use the biomarkers to identify, diagnose, or prognose subjects with a pre-determined level of predictability and performance.
  • biomarkers will be very highly correlated with the biomarkers (for the purpose of this application, any two variables will be considered to be “very highly correlated” when they have a Coefficient of Determination (R 2 ) of 0.5 or greater).
  • R 2 Coefficient of Determination
  • TP is true positive, means positive test result that accurately reflects the tested-for activity.
  • a TP is for example but not limited to, truly classifying a bacterial infection as such.
  • TN is true negative, means negative test result that accurately reflects the tested-for activity.
  • a TN is for example but not limited to, truly classifying a viral infection as such.
  • FN is false negative, means a result that appears negative but fails to reveal a situation.
  • a FN is for example but not limited to, falsely classifying a bacterial infection as a viral infection.
  • FP is false positive, means test result that is erroneously classified in a positive category.
  • a FP is for example but not limited to, falsely classifying a viral infection as a bacterial infection.
  • Specificity is calculated by TN/(TN+FP) or the true negative fraction of non-disease or normal subjects.
  • Total accuracy is calculated by (TN + TP)/(TN + FP +TP + FN).
  • PSV Positive predictive value
  • NDV Neuronal predictive value
  • O’Marcaigh AS, Jacobson RM “Estimating The Predictive Value Of A Diagnostic Test, How To Prevent Misleading Or Confusing Results,” Clin. Ped. 1993, 32(8): 485-491, which discusses specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of a test, e.g., a clinical diagnostic test.
  • MCC (TP * TN - FP * FN) / ⁇ (TP + FN) * (TP + FP) * (TN + FP) * (TN + FN) ⁇ A 0.5 where TP, FP, TN, FN are true -positives, false-positives, true-negatives, and false-negatives, respectively. Note that MCC values range between -1 to +1, indicating completely wrong and perfect classification, respectively. An MCC of 0 indicates random classification. MCC has been shown to be a useful for combining sensitivity and specificity into a single metric (Baldi, Brunak et al. 2000). It is also useful for measuring and optimizing classification accuracy in cases of unbalanced class sizes (Baldi, Brunak et al. 2000).
  • ROC Receiver Operating Characteristics
  • “Accuracy” refers to the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity (a test reported value) to its actual (or true) value. Clinical accuracy relates to the proportion of true outcomes (true positives (TP) or true negatives (TN) versus misclassified outcomes (false positives (FP) or false negatives (FN)), and may be stated as a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) or negative predictive values (NPV), Matheus correlation coefficient (MCC), or as a likelihood, odds ratio, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, Area Under the Curve (AUC) among other measures.
  • TP true positives
  • TN true negatives
  • FP false negatives
  • MPC Matheus correlation coefficient
  • ROC Receiver Operating Characteristic
  • a “formula,” “algorithm,” or “model” is any mathematical equation, algorithmic, analytical or programmed process, or statistical technique that takes one or more continuous or categorical inputs (herein called “parameters”) and calculates an output value, sometimes referred to as an “index” or “index value”.
  • “formulas” include sums, ratios, and regression operators, such as coefficients or exponents, biomarker value transformations and normalizations (including, without limitation, those normalization schemes based on clinical-biomarkers, such as gender, age, or ethnicity), rules and guidelines, statistical classification models, and neural networks trained on historical populations.
  • biomarkers Of particular use in combining biomarkers are linear and non-linear equations and statistical classification analyses to determine the relationship between levels of biomarkers detected in a subject sample and the subject’s probability of having an infection or a certain type of infection.
  • structural and syntactic statistical classification algorithms, and methods of index construction utilizing pattern recognition features, including established techniques such as cross-correlation, Principal Components Analysis (PCA), factor rotation, Logistic Regression (LogReg), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), Eigengene Linear Discriminant Analysis (ELDA), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Recursive Partitioning Tree (RPART), as well as other related decision tree classification techniques, Shrunken Centroids (SC), StepAIC, Kth-Nearest Neighbor, Boosting, Decision Trees, Neural Networks, Bayesian Networks, and Hidden Markov Models, among others.
  • PCA Principal Components Analysis
  • LogReg Logistic Regression
  • LDA Linear Discriminant Analysis
  • ELDA Eigen
  • biomarker selection techniques such as forward selection, backwards selection, or stepwise selection, complete enumeration of all potential panels of a given size, genetic algorithms, or they may themselves include biomarker selection methodologies in their own technique.
  • biomarker selection methodologies such as Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayes Information Criterion (BIC), in order to quantify the tradeoff between additional biomarkers and model improvement, and to aid in minimizing overfit.
  • AIC Information Criterion
  • BIC Bayes Information Criterion
  • the resulting predictive models may be validated in other studies, or cross-validated in the study they were originally trained in, using such techniques as Bootstrap, Leave-One-Out (LOO) and 10-Fold cross- validation (10-Fold CV).
  • LEO Leave-One-Out
  • 10-Fold cross- validation 10-Fold CV.
  • false discovery rates may be estimated by value permutation according to techniques known in the art.
  • a “health economic utility function” is a formula that is derived from a combination of the expected probability of a range of clinical outcomes in an idealized applicable patient population, both before and after the introduction of a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention into the standard of care.
  • a cost and/or value measurement associated with each outcome, which may be derived from actual health system costs of care (services, supplies, devices and drugs, etc.) and/or as an estimated acceptable value per quality adjusted life year (QALY) resulting in each outcome.
  • a utility associated with each outcome
  • the sum, across all predicted outcomes, of the product of the predicted population size for an outcome multiplied by the respective outcome’s expected utility is the total health economic utility of a given standard of care.
  • the difference between (i) the total health economic utility calculated for the standard of care with the intervention versus (ii) the total health economic utility for the standard of care without the intervention results in an overall measure of the health economic cost or value of the intervention.
  • This may itself be divided amongst the entire patient group being analyzed (or solely amongst the intervention group) to arrive at a cost per unit intervention, and to guide such decisions as market positioning, pricing, and assumptions of health system acceptance.
  • Such health economic utility functions are commonly used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, but may also be transformed to estimate the acceptable value per QALY the health care system is willing to pay, or the acceptable cost- effective clinical performance characteristics required of a new intervention.
  • a health economic utility function may preferentially favor sensitivity over specificity, or PPV over NPV based on the clinical situation and individual outcome costs and value, and thus provides another measure of health economic performance and value which may be different from more direct clinical or analytical performance measures.
  • “Analytical accuracy” refers to the reproducibility and predictability of the measurement process itself, and may be summarized in such measurements as coefficients of variation (CV), Pearson correlation, and tests of concordance and calibration of the same samples or controls with different times, users, equipment and/or reagents. These and other considerations in evaluating new biomarkers are also summarized in Vasan, 2006.
  • “Performance” is a term that relates to the overall usefulness and quality of a diagnostic or prognostic test, including, among others, clinical and analytical accuracy, other analytical and process characteristics, such as use characteristics (e.g., stability, ease of use), health economic value, and relative costs of components of the test. Any of these factors may be the source of superior performance and thus usefulness of the test, and may be measured by appropriate “performance metrics,” such as AUC and MCC, time to result, shelf life, etc. as relevant.
  • Statistical significance can be determined by any method known in the art. Commonly used measures of significance include the p-value, which presents the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as a given data point, assuming the data point was the result of chance alone. A result is often considered highly significant at a p-value of 0.05 or less.
  • Patient Populations Overall, 357 patients from the NAFLD biopsy-confirmed “Discovery Cohort”, 241 patients from “Validation Cohort-1”, 519 patients from “Validation Cohort-2”, 256 patients from “Validation Cohort-3” and 813 patients from the “Real- world Patient Cohort” were included in the study. Table 2 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients in the 5 cohorts. Table 2- Patient Demographics In the NAFLD biopsy-confirmed discovery cohort, patients are predominantly male, fitting the known literature.
  • T2D was presented in 18%-61 % of cohorts’ patients, hypertension in 6%-20% of cohorts’ patients, dyslipidemia in 46%-62 of cohorts’ patients, all correlate with increase in the fibrosis stage.
  • the body-mass index average was overall ⁇ 34 kg/m 2 and hemoglobin Ale (HbAlC) ranged from 5.8 %-7.1%, both with no clear trend between different fibrosis stages.
  • HbAlC hemoglobin Ale
  • 161 patients were identified as having significant fibrosis, 106 as having advanced fibrosis, 40 as having cirrhosis, 77 as having “at- risk” NASH, and 63 as having “at-risk” NASH NIMBLE definition.
  • F stage ⁇ 2 Another 196 patients were at lower fibrosis stage (F stage ⁇ 2).
  • LSM liver stiffness measurement
  • CAP controlled attenuation parameter
  • NAS NAFLD activity score
  • validation cohorts 1-3 51-57% of subjects were women, mean age ranged from 48 to 57 years, and diabetes mellitus was present in 30-59% of patients, having increasing prevalence of age and T2D with fibrosis stage.
  • the BMI average was above 30 kg/m2 and hemoglobin Ale (HbAlC) average ranged from 6.3% to 7.5%.
  • HbAlC hemoglobin Ale
  • the Discovery Cohort contained serum samples from 357 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from Puerta de Hierro and Marques de Valdecilla hospitals, Spain (> 18 years old).
  • the validation cohort- 1 includes 241 biopsy-confirmed NAFLD patients from Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocfo (HUVR), Spain (>18 years old).
  • the validation cohort-2 includes 519 biopsy-confirmed NAFLD patients from Antwerp University Hospital, UZA, Belgium (>18 years old).
  • the validation cohort-3 includes 256 biopsy-confirmed NAFLD patients, collected as part of clinical trial cohort done in US and included patients with fibrosis stage F1-F3 and with NAS > 4.
  • biopsy criteria included suspected advanced liver disease by imaging or laboratory tests, or at the time of bariatric surgery.
  • Exclusion criteria included significant alcohol intake (>30 g daily for men and >20 g daily for women) and evidence of concomitant liver disease, including viral or autoimmune hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus, drug-induced fatty liver, hemochromatosis, or Wilson’s disease.
  • Collected data included anthropometric measurements, blood lab measurements, medical history, Fibroscan® (by Echosense) and biopsy results. For the discovery cohort and validation cohort 3, FibroTest® (by BioPredictive) test results were collected. For validation cohort- 1 and 3 enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF®, by Siemens) test results were collected.
  • “At-risk” NASH cases were defined as having biopsy-confirmed NASH, a NAFLD activity score (NAS) > 4 with at least 1 point in each one of the components, and F > 2 with exclusion of cirrhotic patients.
  • “At risk” NASH NIMBLE definition includes exclusion of patients with F0-F1 and NAS > 4, and F > 2 and NAS ⁇ 4 and with exclusion of cirrhotic patients, according to recently published work by [Sanyal et al. 2023, Nat Med 29, 2656-2664 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02539-6].
  • Real-world Patient Cohort contained serum samples collected from the general Israeli population between 2021-2022, as part of a clinical trial (IRB).
  • EHR electronic health records
  • All cases were individually validated by a health specialist based on biopsy, imaging and/or clinical assessment data.
  • 629 control samples from NAFLD patients were defined as having ICD-9 diagnosis and documented history of abdominal imaging.
  • the discovery cohort was randomly split to train and test sets. First, a feature-by-feature correlation to the outcome was applied, and corrected for multiple hypothesis testing. The significant features were normalized to a standard distribution and passed to a pipeline consisting of forward feature selection using a leave one out crossvalidated L2 regularized logistic regression. This pipeline was used to identify a minimal component serum signature on the train set, optimized for the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for all indications (significant and advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, “at-risk” NASH and “at-risk” NASH NIMBLE definition). Optimal signatures consisting of 2 and 3 proteins were identified and then tested on the test set to confirm performance.
  • AUROC receiver operating characteristic curve
  • Fig. 2 shows that identifying “at-risk” NASH by a two component biomarker signatures comprising C7 and QSOX1, or C7 and ICAM1 was superior to identifying “at-risk” NASH by the FIB-4 score.
  • the proteomic model is referred to as either “MS- LFS”, or “Model”, with composition dependent on context.
  • the optimal two component models included (a) the proteins C7 and GP5 that gave an AUC on the test set of 0.82, 0.86 and 0.96 for significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis respectively, and (b) C7 and ICAM1 that gave an AUC on the test set of 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92 for significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis respectively.
  • F 0.974*C7 + 0.513*ICAMl - 0.130
  • Figs. 3A-3D shows that determining fibrosis stage by a two component biomarker signature comprising of either C7 and GP5, or C7 and ICAM1, was superior to determining fibrosis stage by the FIB-4 score.
  • Fig. 3A-3B shows superiority of the two component biomarker models for diagnosing significant fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3C-3D shows superiority of the two component biomarker models for diagnosing advanced fibrosis.
  • Fig. 3E-3F shows superiority of the two component biomarker models for diagnosing cirrhosis.
  • Fig. 3G shows superiority of the two component biomarker signature C7 and GP5 for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis.
  • the optimal 3 component models consisted of (a) C7, QSOX1 and GP5, and (b) C7, QSOX1 and ICAM1.
  • FIG. 4G-4H shows superiority of the three component biomarker models for diagnosing advanced fibrosis.
  • Fig. 4I-4J shows superiority of the three component biomarker models for diagnosing cirrhosis.
  • Fig. 4K shows superiority of the three component biomarker C7, QSOX1 and GP5 signature for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis a in real world patient cohort.
  • Example 5 The C7,QSOX1 and C7,ICAM1 Biomarker Signatures are Superior to
  • MS-LFS models described in Example 2 outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (i.e., BARD and NFS) and perform similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4) (Fig. 5).
  • MS-EFS scores outperforms commercially available protein biomarkers-based tests, EEF® and FibroTest® (Table 4).
  • MS-LFS models were compared to additional common clinical predictors of fibrosis state: body-mass index, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio and diabetes (BARD); NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS); FibroScan-AST (FAST); Agile 3+ and Agile 4.
  • the AUC of each predictor and the 95% CI are show in Fig. 5 for the full cohorts.
  • the AUC of commercially available protein biomarker-based tests, FibroTest® and ELF® are shown for the full cohorts in Table 4.
  • the MS-LFS scores outperforms all commonly used clinical scores and protein biomarker-based tests, and perform similarly or better to Fibroscan and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4) (Fig. 5, Table 4).
  • MS-LFS models described in Example 3 outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (i.e., BARD and NFS) and perform similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4). Moreover, MS-LFS scores outperforms commercially available protein biomarkers-based tests, ELF® and
  • MS-LFS models were compared to additional common clinical predictors of fibrosis state: body-mass index, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio and diabetes (BARD); NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS); FibroScan-AST (FAST); Agile 3+ and Agile 4.
  • the AUC of each predictor and the 95% CI are show in Fig. 6 for the full cohorts.
  • the AUC of commercially available protein biomarker-based tests, FibroTest® and ELF® are shown for the full cohorts in Table 5.
  • the MS-LFS scores outperforms all commonly used clinical scores and protein biomarker-based tests, and perform similarly or better to Fibroscan and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4) (Fig. 6, Table 5).
  • MS-LFS scores performs better then or similar to all techniques in all indications, albeit with larger CI due to the smaller sample size (Fig. 6A, Table 5).
  • the diagnostic performance remains high for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis also in a real-world primary care patient cohort, the IMOSS-500K, outperforming FIB-4, BARD and NFS.
  • MS-LFS significantly outperform FIB-4, BARD and NFS in the cohort, also when focusing on intermediate FIB-4 subpopulations (Fig. 6A).
  • Example 7 The Three-Protein Biomarker Signatures, C7, QSOX1 and GP5, and C7, QSOX1 and ICAM1, are Superior to Other Clinical Scores for Diagnosing “at-risk” NASH and Fibrosis Stage
  • MS-LFS scores described in Example 4 outperforms other commonly used clinical scores (i.e., BARD and NFS) and perform similarly/better to Fibroscan® and its combination with other clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4) (Fig. 7). Moreover, MS-LFS scores outperforms commercially available protein biomarkers-based tests, ELF® and FibroTest® (Table 6a-b).
  • Table 6a Three-protein biomarker signatures are superior to other commercially available protein biomarker tests for diagnosing fibrosis stage.
  • the diagnostic performance remains high for diagnosing probable NASH cirrhosis also in a real-world primary care patient cohort, the IMOSS-500K, outperforming FIB-4, BARD and NFS.
  • MS-LFS significantly outperform FIB-4, BARD and NFS in the cohort, also when focusing on intermediate FIB -4 and T2D subpopulations (Fig. 7A).
  • Example 8 The Three-Protein Biomarker Signature, C7, QSOX1 and ICAM, is Superior to Other Clinical Scores for Monitoring Liver Fibrosis Stage
  • Example 9 Sensitivity and specificity of the proteomic predictors in different cutoffs.
  • MS-LFS is novel non-invasive serum test, composed of two or three proteins, for identifying patients with significant and advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis and “at-risk” NASH.
  • MS-LFS outperforms commonly used clinical scores, FIB -4, BARD and NFS, and achieves similar diagnostic performance to those of Fibroscan® and its combination with clinical parameters (FAST, Agile 3+ and Agile 4).
  • MS-LFS outperforms commertially available protein-based biomarker tests, ELF® and FibroTest®.
  • MS-LFS synergizes with FIB-4, improving diagnosis of fibrosis and “at-risk” NASH in patients with intermediate FIB-4 values.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Molecular Biology (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Biomedical Technology (AREA)
  • Urology & Nephrology (AREA)
  • Hematology (AREA)
  • Immunology (AREA)
  • Biotechnology (AREA)
  • Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
  • Cell Biology (AREA)
  • Proteomics, Peptides & Aminoacids (AREA)
  • Food Science & Technology (AREA)
  • Medicinal Chemistry (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Microbiology (AREA)
  • Biochemistry (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Pathology (AREA)
  • Investigating Or Analysing Biological Materials (AREA)
  • Measuring Or Testing Involving Enzymes Or Micro-Organisms (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention concerne des biomarqueurs permettant de diagnostiquer un stade de fibrose chez des patients atteints ou à risque de la « stéatohépatite non alcoolique ». La présente invention concerne également des méthodes de traitement de la fibrose.
PCT/IL2024/050607 2023-06-21 2024-06-21 Biomarqueurs de fibrose hépatique, de nash et de nash « à risque » et méthodes Pending WO2024261762A2 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US202363522282P 2023-06-21 2023-06-21
US63/522,282 2023-06-21

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2024261762A2 true WO2024261762A2 (fr) 2024-12-26
WO2024261762A3 WO2024261762A3 (fr) 2025-02-27

Family

ID=91782095

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/IL2024/050607 Pending WO2024261762A2 (fr) 2023-06-21 2024-06-21 Biomarqueurs de fibrose hépatique, de nash et de nash « à risque » et méthodes

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2024261762A2 (fr)

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4230767A (en) 1978-02-08 1980-10-28 Toyo Boseki Kabushiki Kaisha Heat sealable laminated propylene polymer packaging material
US4233402A (en) 1978-04-05 1980-11-11 Syva Company Reagents and method employing channeling
US4275149A (en) 1978-11-24 1981-06-23 Syva Company Macromolecular environment control in specific receptor assays
US4376110A (en) 1980-08-04 1983-03-08 Hybritech, Incorporated Immunometric assays using monoclonal antibodies
US4659678A (en) 1982-09-29 1987-04-21 Serono Diagnostics Limited Immunoassay of antigens
US4727022A (en) 1984-03-14 1988-02-23 Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. Methods for modulating ligand-receptor interactions and their application

Family Cites Families (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US9134326B2 (en) * 2013-03-14 2015-09-15 Battelle Memorial Institute Biomarkers for liver fibrosis
KR102116178B1 (ko) * 2017-05-10 2020-05-27 서울대학교산학협력단 간암 고위험군의 간암 발병 모니터링 또는 진단용 바이오마커 및 그 용도
US12372530B2 (en) * 2017-11-15 2025-07-29 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. Markers for the diagnosis and treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and advanced liver fibrosis

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4230767A (en) 1978-02-08 1980-10-28 Toyo Boseki Kabushiki Kaisha Heat sealable laminated propylene polymer packaging material
US4233402A (en) 1978-04-05 1980-11-11 Syva Company Reagents and method employing channeling
US4275149A (en) 1978-11-24 1981-06-23 Syva Company Macromolecular environment control in specific receptor assays
US4376110A (en) 1980-08-04 1983-03-08 Hybritech, Incorporated Immunometric assays using monoclonal antibodies
US4659678A (en) 1982-09-29 1987-04-21 Serono Diagnostics Limited Immunoassay of antigens
US4727022A (en) 1984-03-14 1988-02-23 Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. Methods for modulating ligand-receptor interactions and their application

Non-Patent Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
COOK: "Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction", CIRCULATION, vol. 115, 2007, pages 928 - 935
KLEINER DE ET AL., HEPATOLOGY, vol. 41, 2005, pages 1313 - 1321
O'MARCAIGH ASJACOBSON RM: "Estimating The Predictive Value Of A Diagnostic Test, How To Prevent Misleading Or Confusing Results", CLIN. PED., vol. 32, no. 8, 1993, pages 485 - 491
PEPE ET AL.: "Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic, Prognostic, or Screening Marker", AM. J. EPIDEMIOL, vol. 159, no. 9, 2004, pages 882 - 890, XP055013965, DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh101
SANYAL ET AL., NAT MED, vol. 29, 2023, pages 2656 - 2664, Retrieved from the Internet <URL:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02539-6>
SHULTZ: "Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry", 1996, W.B. SAUNDERS COMPANY, article "Clinical Interpretation Of Laboratory Procedures", pages: 192 - 199
ZWEIG ET AL.: "ROC Curve Analysis: An Example Showing The Relationships Among Serum Lipid And Apolipoprotein Concentrations In Identifying Subjects With Coronory Artery Disease", CLIN. CHEM., vol. 38, no. 8, 1992, pages 1425 - 1428

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2024261762A3 (fr) 2025-02-27

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
JP6401702B2 (ja) 炎症性肝疾患の診断のための方法および組成物
EP2362942B1 (fr) Biomarqueurs
US9689874B2 (en) Protein biomarker panels for detecting colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma
US20180100858A1 (en) Protein biomarker panels for detecting colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma
US20120178100A1 (en) Serum Markers Predicting Clinical Response to Anti-TNF Alpha Antibodies in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis
CA2943827A1 (fr) Profils de biomarqueur de proteine permettant de detecter des tumeurs colorectales
US20140271621A1 (en) Methods of prognosis and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer
TWI868698B (zh) 用於快速診斷川崎病的分子生物標誌物和分析方法
WO2015164616A1 (fr) Biomarqueurs de détection de la tuberculose
Alboraie et al. Egy-score predicts severe hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis in Egyptians with chronic liver diseases: a pilot study
CN119955918A (zh) 抑郁症诊断生物标志物及其应用
WO2024261762A2 (fr) Biomarqueurs de fibrose hépatique, de nash et de nash « à risque » et méthodes
EP3311164B1 (fr) Méthodes et compositions pour le diagnostic et le pronostic de l&#39;appendicite et la différenciation des causes de la douleur abdominale
El-Serag et al. HES V2. 0 validation and performance compared to GALAD and ASAP in the HEDS cohort
CN116381237B (zh) 一种甲状腺癌早期预测系统及其应用
US20250377366A1 (en) Assessment of chronic liver disease
US20230400473A1 (en) Methods and compositions for the treatment of crohn&#39;s disease
WO2025132799A1 (fr) Méthodes de diagnostic et de surveillance de la maladie de la stéatohépatite non alcoolique
WO2025099196A1 (fr) Marqueurs pour détecter et assurer le suivi de la fibrose hépatique
WO2024123172A1 (fr) Biomarqueurs protéiques pour le pronostic de la fibrose hépatique
WO2014057263A1 (fr) Dosage de néphropathie chronique
Bissell et al. Vitamin D deficiency associates with increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality, but the mechanism driving this association is

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 24738082

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A2