Diagnostic Utility of Serum and Urinary Metabolite Analysis in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis/Painful Bladder Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the potential biomarkers of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome (IC), a chronic syndrome of bladder-centric pain with unknown etiology that has an adverse impact on quality of life, we analyzed the urine and serum metabolomes of a cohort of IC patients and non-disease controls (NC). METHODS: Home collection of serum and urine samples was obtained from 19 IC and 20 NC females in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. IC was diagnosed independently by thorough review of medical records using established criteria. Biostatistics and bioinformatics analyses, including univariate analysis, unsupervised clustering, random forest analysis, and metabolite set enrichment analysis (MSEA), were then utilized to identify potential IC biomarkers. RESULTS: Metabolomics profiling revealed distinct expression patterns between NC and IC. Random forest analysis of urine samples suggested discriminators specific to IC; these include phenylalanine, purine, 5-oxoproline, and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid. When these urinary metabolomics-based analytes were combined into a single model, the AUC was 0.92, suggesting strong potential clinical value as a diagnostic signature. Serum-based metabolomics did not provide potential IC discriminators. CONCLUSION: Analysis of serum and urine revealed that women with IC have distinct metabolomes, highlighting key metabolic pathways that may provide insight into the pathophysiology of IC. The findings from this pilot study suggest that integrated analyses of urinary metabolites, purine, phenylalanine, 5-oxoproline, and 5-HIAA, can lead to promising IC biomarkers for pathophysiology of IC. Validation of these results using a larger dataset is currently underway.

An exploratory survey on the awareness and usage of clinical practice guidelines among clinical pharmacists.

Background: The NHLBI has not developed clinical practice guidelines since 2007. As a result, multiple organizations have released competing guidelines. This has created confusion and debate among clinicians as to which recommendations are most applicable for practice. Objectives: To explore preliminary attitudes, awareness, and usage of clinical practice guidelines in practice and teaching for hypertension, dyslipidemia and asthma among clinical pharmacists. Methods: Clinical pharmacists across the US were surveyed electronically over a two week period in Spring 2019 regarding utilization and knowledge of practice guidelines for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and asthma. Clinical cases were included to evaluate application of guidelines. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square analysis, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were conducted. Statistical significance level was set to 0.01 to account for multiple tests conducted on the same survey participants. Results: Forty-eight, 34, and 28 pharmacists voluntarily completed hypertension, dyslipidemia, and asthma survey questions, respectively. Interactions by disease state (p < 0.001) revealed more pharmacists (93%) reporting to have ≤50% patient load in managing asthma and more pharmacists (95%) had read the full summary/report of the most recent hypertension guideline. Primary reasons why the most recent guideline was not selected were also significantly different by disease state (interaction; p < 0.001). For dyslipidemia and asthma, pharmacists had a higher mean rating of agreement (p < 0.007) in having the most confidence in the most recent as compared to older guidelines. Proportionally more clinical cases were answered correctly (interaction; p < 0.001) when pharmacists applied the most recent guideline for hypertension (84%), while the opposite outcome was found for asthma (27%). Conclusion: While more pharmacists selected the most recent guideline for practice and teaching, there was inconsistent application of guidelines to clinical cases. Further studies with a larger representation of pharmacists are warranted to more definitively determine factors influencing guideline preference and usage.