Frontiers in Immunology (Jul 2024)
Plasma metabolome analysis for predicting antiviral treatment efficacy in chronic hepatitis B: diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic insights
Abstract
The early and accurate identification of predictive biomarkers for antiviral treatment efficacy remains a significant clinical challenge, particularly in the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This study aimed to assess whether the plasma metabolome could reliably predict the success of antiviral therapy in CHB patients. We conducted a retrospective analysis on 56 treatment-naive CHB patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University from December 2013 to March 2016. Patients who underwent a 48-week treatment regimen of entecavir (ETV) and interferon-alpha (IFN-α) were randomly assigned to either a discovery cohort (n=29) or a validation cohort (n=27). Based on the outcome of the treatment, patients were classified as HBeAg seroconversion group (High responders, Hrp) or the non-remission group (Low responder, Lrp). Our methodology involved an untargeted analysis of the amine/phenol and carboxylic acid submetabolomes in the CHB patients under treatment, utilizing chemical isotope labeling (CIL) techniques with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Several metabolites were identified as having significant diagnostic potential for distinguishing Hrp from Lrp, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) exceeding those typical clinical indicators. Notably, four metabolites, namely 2-methyl-3-ketovaleric acid, 2-ketohexanoic acid, 6-oxo-1,4,5,6-tetrahydronicotinic acid, and α-ketoisovaleric acid, demonstrated exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity in both cohorts, nearing 100%. In contrast, the clinical indicators, including HBcAb, log(HBsAg), and HBeAb, demonstrated lower and inconsistent sensitivity and specificity between the discovery and validation cohorts. Using HBcAb as a marker, the sensitivity was 87.5% with 76.9% specificity in the discovery cohort; however, the sensitivity dropped to 46.7% with 91.7% specificity in the validation cohort. Using log(HBsAg), the sensitivity was 84.6% with 69.2% specificity in the discovery cohort, compared to 85.7% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity in the validation cohort. For HBeAb, the separation of Hrp and Lrp had a sensitivity of 87.5% with 69.2% specificity in the discovery cohort, while the validation cohort showed 86.7% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity.
Keywords
