71
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Methods for the evaluation of biomarkers in patients with kidney and liver diseases: multicentre research programme including ELUCIDATE RCT

      1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 2 , 4 , 4 , 11 , 11 , 7 , 3 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 5 , 1 , 2 , 12 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 13 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 1 , 14 , 2 , 4 , 3 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26
      Programme Grants for Applied Research
      National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Protein biomarkers with associations with the activity and outcomes of diseases are being identified by modern proteomic technologies. They may be simple, accessible, cheap and safe tests that can inform diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, monitoring of disease activity and therapy and may substitute for complex, invasive and expensive tests. However, their potential is not yet being realised.

          Design and methods

          The study consisted of three workstreams to create a framework for research: workstream 1, methodology – to define current practice and explore methodology innovations for biomarkers for monitoring disease; workstream 2, clinical translation – to create a framework of research practice, high-quality samples and related clinical data to evaluate the validity and clinical utility of protein biomarkers; and workstream 3, the ELF to Uncover Cirrhosis as an Indication for Diagnosis and Action for Treatable Event (ELUCIDATE) randomised controlled trial (RCT) – an exemplar RCT of an established test, the ADVIA Centaur® Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd, Camberley, UK) [consisting of a panel of three markers – (1) serum hyaluronic acid, (2) amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and (3) tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1], for liver cirrhosis to determine its impact on diagnostic timing and the management of cirrhosis and the process of care and improving outcomes.

          Results

          The methodology workstream evaluated the quality of recommendations for using prostate-specific antigen to monitor patients, systematically reviewed RCTs of monitoring strategies and reviewed the monitoring biomarker literature and how monitoring can have an impact on outcomes. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate monitoring and improve the merits of health care. The monitoring biomarker literature is modest and robust conclusions are infrequent. We recommend improvements in research practice. Patients strongly endorsed the need for robust and conclusive research in this area. The clinical translation workstream focused on analytical and clinical validity. Cohorts were established for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal transplantation (RT), with samples and patient data from multiple centres, as a rapid-access resource to evaluate the validity of biomarkers. Candidate biomarkers for RCC and RT were identified from the literature and their quality was evaluated and selected biomarkers were prioritised. The duration of follow-up was a limitation but biomarkers were identified that may be taken forward for clinical utility. In the third workstream, the ELUCIDATE trial registered 1303 patients and randomised 878 patients out of a target of 1000. The trial started late and recruited slowly initially but ultimately recruited with good statistical power to answer the key questions. ELF monitoring altered the patient process of care and may show benefits from the early introduction of interventions with further follow-up. The ELUCIDATE trial was an ‘exemplar’ trial that has demonstrated the challenges of evaluating biomarker strategies in ‘end-to-end’ RCTs and will inform future study designs.

          Conclusions

          The limitations in the programme were principally that, during the collection and curation of the cohorts of patients with RCC and RT, the pace of discovery of new biomarkers in commercial and non-commercial research was slower than anticipated and so conclusive evaluations using the cohorts are few; however, access to the cohorts will be sustained for future new biomarkers. The ELUCIDATE trial was slow to start and recruit to, with a late surge of recruitment, and so final conclusions about the impact of the ELF test on long-term outcomes await further follow-up. The findings from the three workstreams were used to synthesise a strategy and framework for future biomarker evaluations incorporating innovations in study design, health economics and health informatics.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74815110, UKCRN ID 9954 and UKCRN ID 11930.

          Funding

          This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

          Related collections

          Most cited references909

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

              The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Programme Grants for Applied Research
                Programme Grants Appl Res
                National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
                2050-4322
                2050-4330
                June 2018
                June 2018
                : 6
                : 3
                : 1-528
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical and Biomedical Proteomics Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [2 ]Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [4 ]Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [5 ]Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [7 ]Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [8 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada
                [9 ]Primary Care and Population Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                [10 ]Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [11 ]LIVErNORTH Liver Patient Support, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [12 ]Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [13 ]Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [14 ]Department of Specialist Laboratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
                [15 ]University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [16 ]Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [17 ]Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
                [18 ]Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
                [19 ]Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [20 ]Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
                [21 ]Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK
                [22 ]North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
                [23 ]Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport, UK
                [24 ]NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
                [25 ]Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [26 ]Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
                Article
                10.3310/pgfar06030
                2cfbf8ab-49d6-4736-8535-90e887fa9ff3
                © 2018

                Free to read

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content123

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors11,398