A rapid host-protein test for differentiating bacterial from viral infection: Apollo diagnostic accuracy study.

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid host-protein test for differentiating bacterial from viral infections in patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC). Methods: This was a prospective multicenter, blinded study. MeMed BV (MMBV), a test based on tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), interferon gamma-inducible protein-10 (IP-10), and C-reactive protein (CRP), was measured using a rapid measurement platform. Patients were enrolled from 9 EDs and 3 UCCs in the United States and Israel. Patients >3 months of age presenting with fever and clinical suspicion of acute infection were considered eligible. MMBV results were not provided to the treating clinician. MMBV results (bacterial/viral/equivocal) were compared against a reference standard method for classification of infection etiology determined by expert panel adjudication. Experts were blinded to MMBV results. They were provided with comprehensive patient data, including laboratory, microbiological, radiological and follow-up. Results: Of 563 adults and children enrolled, 476 comprised the study population (314 adults, 162 children). The predominant clinical syndrome was respiratory tract infection (60.5% upper, 11.3% lower). MMBV demonstrated sensitivity of 90.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80.3-99.7), specificity of 92.8% (90.0%-95.5%), and negative predictive value of 98.8% (96.8%-99.6%) for bacterial infections. Only 7.2% of cases yielded equivocal MMBV scores. Area under the curve for MMBV was 0.95 (0.90-0.99). Conclusions: MMBV had a high sensitivity and specificity relative to reference standard for differentiating bacterial from viral infections. Future implementation of MMBV for patients with suspected acute infections could potentially aid with appropriate antibiotic decision-making.

PATHWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH POSITIVE SEPSIS SURVIVAL OUTCOMES IN AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK AND NON-HISPANIC WHITE PATIENTS WITH URINARY TRACT INFECTION.

ABSTRACT: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common cause of sepsis worldwide. Annually, more than 60,000 US deaths can be attributed to sepsis secondary to UTIs, and African American/Black adults have higher incidence and case-fatality rates than non-Hispanic White adults. Molecular-level factors that may help partially explain differences in sepsis survival outcomes between African American/Black and Non-Hispanic White adults are not clear. In this study, patient samples (N = 166) from the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock cohort were analyzed using discovery-based plasma proteomics. Patients had sepsis secondary to UTIs and were stratified according to self-identified racial background and sepsis survival outcomes. Proteomics results suggest patient heterogeneity across mechanisms driving survival from sepsis secondary to UTIs. Differentially expressed proteins (n = 122, false discovery rate-adjusted P < 0.05) in Non-Hispanic White sepsis survivors were primarily in immune system pathways, while differentially expressed proteins (n = 47, false discovery rate-adjusted P < 0.05) in African American/Black patients were mostly in metabolic pathways. However, in all patients, regardless of racial background, there were 16 differentially expressed proteins in sepsis survivors involved in translation initiation and shutdown pathways. These pathways are potential targets for prognostic intervention. Overall, this study provides information about molecular factors that may help explain disparities in sepsis survival outcomes among African American/Black and Non-Hispanic White patients with primary UTIs.

Reconsidering the use of race adjustments in maternal serum screening.

The use of race in maternal serum screening is problematic because race is a social construct rather than a distinct biological classifier. Nevertheless, laboratories offering this testing are encouraged to use race-specific cutoff values for maternal serum screening biomarkers to determine the risk of fetal abnormalities. Large cohort studies examining racial differences in maternal serum screening biomarker concentrations have yielded conflicting results, which we postulate may be explained by genetic and socioeconomic differences between racial cohorts in different studies. We recommend that the use of race in maternal serum screening should be abandoned. Further research is needed to identify socioeconomic and environmental factors that contribute to differences in maternal serum screening biomarker concentrations observed between races. A better understanding of these factors may facilitate accurate race-agnostic risk estimates for aneuploidy and neural tube defects.

Proteomic changes associated with racial background and sepsis survival outcomes.

Intra-abdominal infection is a common cause of sepsis, and intra-abdominal sepsis leads to ∼156 000 U.S. deaths annually. African American/Black adults have higher incidence and mortality rates from sepsis compared to Non-Hispanic White adults. A limited number of studies have traced survival outcomes to molecular changes; however, these studies primarily only included Non-Hispanic White adults. Our goal is to better understand molecular changes that may contribute to differences in sepsis survival in African American/Black and Non-Hispanic White adults with primary intra-abdominal infection. We employed discovery-based plasma proteomics of patient samples from the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) cohort (N = 107). We identified 49 proteins involved in the acute phase response and complement system whose expression levels are associated with both survival outcome and racial background. Additionally, 82 proteins differentially-expressed in survivors were specific to African American/Black or Non-Hispanic White patients, suggesting molecular-level heterogeneity in sepsis patients in key inflammatory pathways. A smaller, robust set of 19 proteins were in common in African American/Black and Non-Hispanic White survivors and may represent potential universal molecular changes in sepsis. Overall, this study identifies molecular factors that may contribute to differences in survival outcomes in African American/Black patients that are not fully explained by socioeconomic or other non-biological factors.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

The Lines That Held Us: Assessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence are apparent. Race is a sociocultural construct, necessitating investigation into how sociocultural factors contribute. METHODS: This cross-sectional study linked laboratory data of adult patients between February 29 and May 15, 2020 with socio-demographics variables from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS). Medical sites included healthcare organizations in Michigan, New York, North Carolina, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Race was treated as a proxy for racism and not biological essentialism. Laboratory data included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, test result, test location, and residential ZIP code. ACS data included economic and educational variables contributing to an SES Index, population density, proportion Medicaid, and racial composition for corresponding ZIP code. Associations between race/socioeconomic variables and test results were examined using odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Of 126 452 patients [mean (SD) age 51.9 (18.4) years; 52 747 (41.7%) men; 68 856 (54.5%) White and 27 805 (22.0%) Black], 18 905 (15.0%) tested positive. Of positive tests, 5238 (SD 27.7%) were White and 7223 (SD 38.2%) were Black. Black race increased the odds of a positive test; this finding was consistent across sites [OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.95-2.29)]. When subset by race, higher SES increased the odds of a positive test for White patients [OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05-1.16)] but decreased the odds for Black patients [OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99)]. Black patients, but not White patients, who tested positive overwhelmingly resided in more densely populated areas. CONCLUSIONS: Black race was associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity and the relationship between SES and test positivity differed by race, suggesting the impact of socioeconomic status on test positivity is race-specific.

Antibody Responses After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in Residential Older Adults: Implications for Reopening.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 disproportionately impacts residents in long-term care facilities. Our objective was to quantify the presence and magnitude of antibody response in vaccinated, older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional quality improvement study was conducted March 15 - April 1, 2021 in the greater Pittsburgh region. SETTING AND POPULATION: Participants were older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities, who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Conditions that impair immune responses were exclusionary criteria. METHODS: Sera were collected to measure IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody level with reflex to total anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin levels, and blinded evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization titers. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression analysis evaluated relationships between factors potentially associated with antibody levels. Spearman correlations were calculated between antibody levels and neutralization titers. RESULTS: All participants (N = 70) had received two rounds of vaccination and were found to have antibodies with wide variation in relative levels. Antibody levels trended lower in males, advanced age, current use of steroids, and longer length of time from vaccination. Pseudovirus neutralization titer levels were strongly correlated (P < .001) with Beckman Coulter antibody levels [D614 G NT50, rs = 0.91; B.1.1.7 (UK) NT50, rs = 0.91]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Higher functioning, healthier, residential older adults mounted detectable antibody responses when vaccinated with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Data suggests some degree of immunity is present during the immediate period following vaccination. However, protective effects remain to be determined in larger studies as clinical protection is afforded by ongoing adaptive immunity, which is known to be decreased in older adults. This study provides important preliminary results on level of population risk in older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities to inform reopening strategies, but are not likely to be translatable for residents in nursing homes.

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization PARTICIPANTS: We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable - e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. RANDOMISATION: We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Review of the Preanalytical Errors That Impact Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Preanalytical errors comprise the majority of testing errors experienced by clinical laboratories and significantly impact the accuracy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: Specific preanalytical factors in sample timing, collection, transport, processing, and storage that lead to errors in TDM were reviewed. We performed a literature search using several scientific databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and ResearchGate for human studies published in the English language from January 1980 to February 2021, reporting on TDM and the preanalytical phase. RESULTS: Blood collection errors (ie, wrong anticoagulant/clot activator used, via an intravenous line, incorrect time after dosing) delay testing, cause inaccurate results, and adversely impact patient care. Blood collected in lithium heparin tubes instead of heparin sodium tubes produce supertoxic lithium concentrations, which can compromise care. Specimens collected in serum separator gel tubes cause falsely decreased concentrations due to passive absorption into the gel when samples are not processed and analyzed quickly. Dried blood spots are popular for TDM as they are minimally invasive, allowing for self-sampling and direct shipping to a clinical laboratory using regular mail. However, blood collection techniques, such as trauma to the collection site, filter paper fragility, and hematocrit (Hct) bias, can adversely affect the accuracy of the results. Volumetric absorptive microsampling is a potential alternative to dried blood spot that offers fast, volume-fixed sampling, low pain tolerance, and is not susceptible to Hct concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of preanalytical factors that may negatively impact TDM is critical. Developing workflows that can standardize TDM practices, align appropriate timing and blood collection techniques, and specimen processing will eliminate errors.

Feasibility of Embedding a Scalable, Virtually Enabled Biorepository in the Electronic Health Record for Precision Medicine.

Importance: A cornerstone of precision medicine is the identification and use of biomarkers that help subtype patients for targeted treatment. Such an approach requires the development and subsequent interrogation of large-scale biobanks linked to well-annotated clinical data. Traditional means of creating these data-linked biobanks are costly and lengthy, especially in acute conditions that require time-sensitive clinical data and biospecimens. Objectives: To develop a virtually enabled biorepository and electronic health record (EHR)-embedded, scalable cohort for precision medicine (VESPRE) and compare the feasibility, enrollment, and costs of VESPRE with those of a traditional study design in acute care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a prospective cohort study, the EHR-embedded screening alert was generated for 3428 patients, and 2199 patients (64%) were eligible and screened. Of these, 1027 patients (30%) were enrolled. VESPRE was developed for regulatory compliance, feasibility, internal validity, and cost in a prospective cohort of 1027 patients (aged ≥18 years) with sepsis-3 within 6 hours of presentation to the emergency department. The VESPRE infrastructure included (1) automated EHR screening, (2) remnant blood collection for creation of a virtually enabled biorepository, and (3) automated clinical data abstraction. The study was conducted at an academic institution in southwestern Pennsylvania from October 17, 2017, to June 6, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regulatory compliance, enrollment, internal validity of automated screening, biorepository acquisition, and costs. Results: Of the 1027 patients enrolled in the study, 549 were included in the proof-of-concept analysis (305 [56%] men); median (SD) age was 59 (17) years. VESPRE collected 12 963 remnant blood and urine samples and demonstrated adequate feasibility for clinical, biomarker, and microbiome analyses. Over the 20-month test, the total cost beyond the existing operations infrastructure was $39 417.50 ($14 880.00 project management, $22 717.50 laboratory supplies/staff, and $1820.00 data management)-approximately $39 per enrolled patient vs $239 per patient for a traditional cohort study. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that, in a large US health system that collects data using a common EHR platform and centralized laboratory system, VESPRE, a large-scale, inexpensive EHR-embedded infrastructure for precision medicine can be used. Tested in the sepsis setting, VESPRE appeared to capture a high proportion of eligible patients at low incremental cost.

Recognizing Laboratory Medicine's Collaborative Role in Identifying and Eliminating Health Disparities.

BACKGROUND: A health disparity is a health outcome that presents in a lesser or greater extent between populations. Health disparities in diseases are products of complex interactions between social, economic, and to a lesser extent, biological factors and can be mediated by structural racism and discriminatory policies. The objective of this review is to understand how both laboratorians and nonlaboratorians think about the relationship between laboratory medicine and health disparities and to highlight ways in which laboratory medicine can play a role in eliminating health disparities. CONTENT: We developed an electronic survey from which we selected the top responses reported by the 215 participants to frame a discussion around why laboratorians perceive health disparities exists, and how they can reduce health disparities. SUMMARY: We found that both laboratorians and nonlaboratorians feel that laboratory medicine can and should play a role in reducing health disparities using many tools already in use in the clinical laboratory. The skills of laboratory workers in data generation, the establishment of reference ranges, control over the presentation of laboratory results, generation of test menus, and the development of novel diagnostics may impact health disparities. Laboratorians' responses in our survey indicated that they felt that they could reduce health disparities by using laboratory data to proactively track in cooperation with healthcare providers individuals with chronic conditions to prevent acute events, ensuring gender and ethnic diversity in new clinical trials, including appropriate curriculum in laboratory medicine training, using equations and reference intervals based on physiological differences and participating in unconscious bias training.