Development and Validation of a Risk Assessment Model for Pulmonary Nodules Using Plasma Proteins and Clinical Factors.

BACKGROUND: Deficiencies in risk assessment for patients with pulmonary nodules (PNs) contribute to unnecessary invasive testing and delays in diagnosis. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the accuracy of a novel PN risk model that includes plasma proteins and clinical factors? How does the accuracy compare with that of an established risk model? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on technology using magnetic nanosensors, assays were developed with seven plasma proteins. In a training cohort (n = 429), machine learning approaches were used to identify an optimal algorithm that subsequently was evaluated in a validation cohort (n = 489), and its performance was compared with the Mayo Clinic model. RESULTS: In the training set, we identified a support vector machine algorithm that included the seven plasma proteins and six clinical factors that demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 and met other selection criteria. The resulting risk reclassification model (RRM) was used to recategorize patients with a pretest risk of between 10% and 84%, and its performance was assessed across five risk strata (low, ≤ 10%; moderate, 10%-34%; intermediate, 35%-70%; high, 71%-84%; very high, > 85%). Stratification by the RRM decreased the proportion of intermediate-risk patients from 26.7% to 10.8% (P < .001) and increased the low-risk and high-risk strata from 16.8% to 21.9% (P < .001) and from 3.7% to 12.1% (P < .001), respectively. Among patients classified as low risk by the RRM and Mayo Clinic model, the corresponding true-negative to false-negative ratios were 16.8 and 19.5, respectively. Among patients classified as very high risk by the RRM and Mayo Clinic model, the corresponding true-positive to false-positive ratios were 28.5 and 17.0, respectively. Compared with the Mayo Clinic model, the RRM provided higher specificity at the low-risk threshold and higher sensitivity at the very high-risk threshold. INTERPRETATION: The RRM accurately reclassified some patients into low-risk and very high-risk categories, suggesting the potential to improve PN risk assessment.

POST-OPERATIVE CRITERION BASED REHABILITATION OF ACL REPAIRS: A CLINICAL COMMENTARY.

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most commonly reconstructed ligament of the knee. Most often, the goal of surgical reconstruction is to recreate stability within the knee and prevent joint degeneration. To date, clinical studies have not demonstrated the ability of various reconstruction techniques in establishing complete knee stability when comparing rates of osteoarthritis. Rates of osteoarthritis commonly resemble those of knees which have not be reconstructed and in this light, may not demonstrate a successful outcome. As modern medicine continues to develop and in the understanding of underlying biological processes grows, some surgeons have turned their attention back to an ACL repair technique. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to discuss the parameters associated with a phase progression for an isolated ACL repair. Physiological healing time frames, along with objective clinical assessment, following a criterion-based progression is described in accordance with post-operative healing parameters to serve as a reference for a rehabilitation specialist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Cost effectiveness analysis of a next generation risk assessment score for cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIRISK VP, a next generation coronary heart disease risk assessment score, in correctly reclassifying and appropriately treating asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov model was employed with simulated subjects based on the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study evaluated three treatment strategies: (i) practice at MESA enrollment, (ii) current guidelines, and (iii) MIRISK VP in MESA. METHODS: The model assessed patient healthcare costs and outcomes, expressed in terms of life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over the lifetime of the cohort from the provider and payer perspective. A total of 50,000 hypothetical individuals were used in the model. A sensitivity analysis was conducted (based on the various input parameters) for the entire cohort and also for individuals aged 65 and older. RESULTS: Guiding treatment with MIRISK VP leads to the highest net monetary benefits when compared to the 'Practice at MESA Enrollment' or to the 'Current Guidelines' strategies. MIRISK VP resulted in a lower mortality rate from any CHD event and a modest increase in QALY of 0.12-0.17 years compared to the other two approaches. LIMITATIONS: This study has limitations of not comparing performance against strategies other than the FRS, the results are simulated as with all models, the model does not incorporate indirect healthcare costs, and the impact of patient or physician behaviors on outcomes were not taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: MIRISK VP has the potential to improve patient outcomes compared to the alternative strategies. It is marginally more costly than both the 'Practice at MESA Enrollment' and the 'Current Guidelines' strategies, but it provides increased effectiveness, which leads to positive net monetary benefits over either strategy.

Clinical utility of a novel coronary heart disease risk-assessment test to further classify intermediate-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Current coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessments inadequately assess intermediate-risk patients, leaving many undertreated and vulnerable to heart attacks. A novel CHD risk-assessment (CHDRA) tool was developed for intermediate-risk stratification using biomarkers and established risk factors to significantly improve CHD risk discrimination. HYPOTHESIS: Physicians will change their treatment plan in response to more information about a patient's CHD risk level provided by the CHDRA test. METHODS: A Web-based survey of cardiology, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics/gynecology physicians (n = 206) was conducted to assess the CHDRA clinical impact. Each physician was shown 3 clinical vignettes representing community-based cohort participants randomly selected from 8 total vignettes. For each, the physicians assessed the individual's CHD risk and selected preferred therapies based on the individual's comorbidities, physical examination, and laboratory results. The individual's CHDRA score was then provided and the physicians were queried for changes to their initial treatment plans. RESULTS: After obtaining the CHDRA result, 70% of the physician responses indicated a change to the patient's treatment plan. The revised lipid-management plans agreed more often (74.6% of the time) with the current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines than did the original plans (57.6% of the time). Most physicians (71.3%) agreed with the statement that the CHDRA result provided information that would impact their current treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The CHDRA test provided additional information to which physicians responded by more often applying appropriate therapy and actions aligned with guidelines, thus demonstrating the clinical utility of the test.

Analytical performance validation of a coronary heart disease risk assessment multi-analyte proteomic test.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains prevalent despite efforts to improve CHD risk assessment. The authors developed a multi-analyte immunoassay-based CHD risk assessment (CHDRA) algorithm, clinically validated in a multicenter study, to improve CHDRA in intermediate risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: Clinical laboratory validation of the CHDRA biomarker assays' analytical performance. METHODS: Multiplexed immunoassay panels developed for the seven CHDRA assays were evaluated with donor sera in a clinical laboratory. Specificity, sensitivity, interfering substances and reproducibility of the CHDRA assays, along with the effects of pre-analytical specimen processing, were evaluated. RESULTS: Analytical measurements of the CHDRA panel proteins (CTACK, Eotaxin, Fas Ligand, HGF, IL-16, MCP-3 and sFas) exhibited acceptable accuracy (80 - 120%), cross-reactivity (< 1%), interference (< 30% at high concentrations of bilirubin, lipids, hemoglobin and HAMA), sensitivity and reproducibility (< 20% CV across multiple runs, operators and instruments). Recoveries from donor sera subjected to typical clinical laboratory pre-analytical conditions were within 80 - 120%. The pre-analytical variables did not substantively impact the CHDRA scores. CONCLUSIONS: The CHDRA panel analytical validation in a clinical laboratory meets or exceeds the specifications established during the clinical utility studies. Risk score reproducibility across multiple test scenarios suggests the assays are not susceptible to clinical laboratory pre-analytical and analytical variation.

Company profile: Aviir, Inc.

Aviir, Inc. is a venture-funded biotechnology company developing and commercializing laboratory tests to provide personalized information to physicians and patients, with the goal of preventing cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndromes. Leveraging advanced research, Aviir developed and launched MIRISK VP™, a risk assessment test to better identify individuals at risk of a heart attack. Aviir also offers an extensive menu of other cardiovascular and metabolic tests through its Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Efforts are likewise focused on expanding genomics testing capability to address sudden cardiac death attributed to inherited cardiovascular diseases. This completes their integrated precision diagnostics approach that combines biomarker immunoassays with genomic and transcription analysis, along with core clinical chemistry to deliver a comprehensive personal health solution.