| 1. |
- Coppo, Rosanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Is there long-term value of pathology scoring in immunoglobulin A nephropathy? : A validation study of the Oxford Classification for IgA Nephropathy (VALIGA) update
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0931-0509 .- 1460-2385. ; 35:6, s. 1002-1009
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It is unknown whether renal pathology lesions in immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) correlate with renal outcomes over decades of follow-up.Methods: In 1130 patients of the original Validation Study of the Oxford Classification for IgA Nephropathy (VALIGA) cohort, we studied the relationship between the MEST score (mesangial hypercellularity, M; endocapillary hypercellularity, E; segmental glomerulosclerosis, S; tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis, T), crescents (C) and other histological lesions with both a combined renal endpoint [50% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) loss or kidney failure] and the rate of eGFR decline over a follow-up period extending to 35 years [median 7 years (interquartile range 4.1-10.8)].Results: In this extended analysis, M1, S1 and T1-T2 lesions as well as the whole MEST score were independently related with the combined endpoint (P < 0.01), and there was no effect modification by age for these associations, suggesting that they may be valid in children and in adults as well. Only T lesions were associated with the rate of eGFR loss in the whole cohort, whereas C showed this association only in patients not treated with immunosuppression. In separate prognostic analyses, the whole set of pathology lesions provided a gain in discrimination power over the clinical variables alone, which was similar at 5 years (+2.0%) and for the whole follow-up (+1.8%). A similar benefit was observed for risk reclassification analyses (+2.7% and +2.4%).Conclusion: Long-term follow-up analyses of the VALIGA cohort showed that the independent relationship between kidney biopsy findings and the risk of progression towards kidney failure in IgAN remains unchanged across all age groups and decades after the renal biopsy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mischak, Harald, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of proteomic biomarkers : making it work
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Clinical Investigation. - : Wiley. - 0014-2972 .- 1365-2362. ; 42:9, s. 1027-1036
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While large numbers of proteomic biomarkers have been described, they are generally not implemented in medical practice. We have investigated the reasons for this shortcoming, focusing on hurdles downstream of biomarker verification, and describe major obstacles and possible solutions to ease valid biomarker implementation. Some of the problems lie in suboptimal biomarker discovery and validation, especially lack of validated platforms with well-described performance characteristics to support biomarker qualification. These issues have been acknowledged and are being addressed, raising the hope that valid biomarkers may start accumulating in the foreseeable future. However, successful biomarker discovery and qualification alone does not suffice for successful implementation. Additional challenges include, among others, limited access to appropriate specimens and insufficient funding, the need to validate new biomarker utility in interventional trials, and large communication gaps between the parties involved in implementation. To address this problem, we propose an implementation roadmap. The implementation effort needs to involve a wide variety of stakeholders (clinicians, statisticians, health economists, and representatives of patient groups, health insurance, pharmaceutical companies, biobanks, and regulatory agencies). Knowledgeable panels with adequate representation of all these stakeholders may facilitate biomarker evaluation and guide implementation for the specific context of use. This approach may avoid unwarranted delays or failure to implement potentially useful biomarkers, and may expedite meaningful contributions of the biomarker community to healthcare.
|
|
