Inicio Blog Página 45

Higher levels of vitamin D correspond to lower cancer risk, researchers say

0

“We have quantitated the ability of adequate amounts of vitamin D to prevent all types of invasive cancer combined, which had been terra incognita until publication of this paper,” said Cedric Garland, DrPH, adjunct professor in the UC San Diego School of Medicine Department of Family Medicine and Public Health and member of Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

Garland and his late brother, Frank, made the first connection between vitamin D deficiency and some cancers in 1980 when they noted populations at higher latitudes (with less available sunlight) were more likely to be deficient in vitamin D, which is produced by the body through exposure to sunshine, and experience higher rates of colon cancer. Subsequent studies by the Garlands and others found vitamin D links to other cancers, such as breast, lung and bladder.

The new PLOS ONE study sought to determine what blood level of vitamin D was required to effectively reduce cancer risk. The marker of vitamin D was 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the main form in the blood. The researchers employed a non-traditional approach, pooling analyses of two previous studies of different types: a randomized clinical trial of 1,169 women and a prospective cohort study of 1,135 women. A clinical trial focuses upon whether a specific test or treatment is safe and effective. A prospective study looks for outcomes during the study period, in this case incidence of cancer among participants.

By combining the two studies, the researchers obtained a larger sample size and a greater range of blood serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D.

The only accurate measure of vitamin D levels in a person is a blood test. In the Lappe trial cohort, the median blood serum level of 25(OH)D was 30 nanograms per milliliter. In the GrassrootsHealth prospective cohort, it was higher: 48 ng/ml.

The researchers found that the age-adjusted cancer incidence was 1,020 cases per 100,000 person-years in the Lappe cohort and 722 per 100,000 person-years in the GrassrootsHealth cohort. Cancer incidence declined with increased 25(OH)D. Women with 25(OH)D concentrations of 40 ng/ml or greater had a 67 percent lower risk of cancer than women with levels of 20 ng/ml or less.

Recommended blood serum levels of vitamin D have been a source of vigorous debate in recent years. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that levels lower than 12 ng/ml represented a vitamin D deficiency and recommended a target of 20 ng/ml, which could be met in most healthy adults (ages 19 to 70) with the equivalent of 600 International Units of vitamin D each day.

Subsequently, other groups have argued for higher blood serum levels: 50 ng/ml or more. Above 125 ng/ml, there may be side effects. Many vitamin D supporters now advocate 800 to 1,000 IUs daily; more for persons older than 70 and pregnant or lactating women.

Garland does not identify a singular, optimum daily intake of vitamin D or the manner of intake, which may be sunlight exposure, diet and/or supplementation. He said the current study simply clarifies that reduced cancer risk becomes measurable at 40 ng/ml, with additional benefit at higher levels.

“These findings support an inverse association between 25(OH)D and risk of cancer,” he said, “and highlight the importance for cancer prevention of achieving a vitamin D blood serum concentration above 20 ng/ml, the concentration recommended by the IOM for bone health.”

Garland said a broad effort to increase 25(OH)D concentrations to a minimum of 40 ng/ml in the general population would likely and substantially reduce cancer incidence and associated mortality.

“Primary prevention of cancer, rather than expanding early detection or improving treatment, will be essential to reversing the current upward trend of cancer incidence worldwide,” the researchers wrote. “This analysis suggests that improving vitamin D status is a key prevention tool.”

Co-authors include S.L. McDonnell, C. Baggerly, C.B. French, L.L. Baggerly, GrassrootsHealth, California; E.D. Gorham, UC San Diego; and J.M. Lappe and R.P. Heaney, Creighton University.

Funding for this study came, in part, from Bio-Tech Pharmacal, Pure North S’Energy Foundation and the Vitamin D Society. Funding for the Lappe study came from Department of Health and Human Services grant AG14683-01A2. Funding for the GrassrootsHealth study was through self-sponsorship by participants and donations from the funders listed above.

Source: UC San diego Health

Listado de emisiones anteriores

No se encontraron entradas.

Cystatin C and Creatinine: Complementary Markers of GFR Expert John C. Lieske, MD

0

Ask the expert: GFR Expert John C. Lieske, MD

Why do labs need a marker in addition to creatinine to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR)?

A: Creatinine is a byproduct of muscle metabolism that is freely filtered by the kidney, the blood concentration of which reflects GFR. However, because muscle mass varies depending on age, sex, race, and level of fitness, the serum concentration of creatinine can still differ between individuals with the same level of kidney function.

The most recent equations for estimating GFR get around this issue to some extent by adjusting for age, sex, and race, which account for much of the inter-individual variability in muscle mass. The equations do not account for other factors that might be important, though, such as chronic illness, malnutrition, or even a larger-than-average muscle mass.

What are the advantages of cystatin C versus creatinine?

Cystatin C is made by all nucleated cells, not just muscle. As a result, cystatin C production varies less than creatinine production between individuals, and blood concentrations of cystatin C are fairly similar between individuals who have the same GFR. However, cystatin C has other potential confounders. For example, chronic inflammation seems to increase cystatin C blood concentrations slightly. Perhaps for this reason, relatively higher blood cystatin C concentrations seem to be a poor prognostic marker.

Overall, when modern equations are used creatinine and cystatin C are, on average, fairly comparable tools for estimating GFR. However, in certain patient populations one may be better than the other, as my research group recently found (Clin Chem 2015;61:1265–72).

How do different assays for cystatin C compare with each other?

Over the last 15 years clinical laboratories and manufacturers have strived to standardize serum creatinine measurement across virtually all platforms. They are in the early phases of a similar process with cystatin C. An international reference material for cystatin C (ERM-DA471/IFCC) was released in June 2010 and certain assays are traceable to this material. As of 2016, though, biases might still exist between commercially available cystatin C assays.

Should cystatin C be used by itself or with other markers?

With modern estimating equations, serum creatinine can be used to obtain an estimated GFR (eGFR) for most individuals that can adequately guide clinical decision making. However, cystatin C is a helpful adjunct in certain subsets of patients. Importantly, cystatin C can be useful when a healthcare provider suspects that a patient’s muscle mass differs from average for his or her age and sex.

Another important setting where cystatin C might have an advantage is among hospitalized patients. In acutely ill individuals GFR often changes rapidly, and cystatin C tends to track this more accurately due to its shorter blood half-life. Muscle mass can also decline rather abruptly in the hospital, further confounding the relationship between GFR and creatinine. Overall, the optimal use of cystatin C among acutely hospitalized patients is an area ripe for further research.

A third approach is applying the combined Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation that uses both cystatin C and creatinine. In effect this averages together the errors of each biomarker alone, since the confounders differ between the two. Personally, I favor using both biomarkers and eGFR equations separately, since differences in the respective eGFRs can provide helpful insights.

How can cystatin C and creatinine be used together to identify and stage patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD)?

I find cystatin C a very useful tool for evaluating CKD patients. If the cystatin C eGFR is greater than the creatinine eGFR, this is usually reassuring. On the other hand, if the cystatin C eGFR is lower than the creatinine eGFR, such individuals appear to have a worse prognosis. This group might benefit the most from intensive efforts to reduce CKD risk factors to the greatest extent possible.

John C. Lieske, MD, is professor of medicine and medical director of the Renal Testing Laboratory at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 

Source: AACC

The IFCC eAcademy

0

The IFCC eAcademy is an open educational resource containing distance learning material created and/or reviewed by IFCC experts for the continuous professional development of members of IFCC member organisations.

This new educational tool is being developed by the C-DL and C-Iel. Suggestions for topics, content or contributions may be made using the Contact Us form on the IFCC website.

Topics

  • Quality Management and Accreditation
  • Methodology
  • Core/Stat Laboratory
  • Endrocrinology and Metabolism
  • Drugs and Drug Monitoring
  • Neoplasia
  • Genetic Testing
  • Other areas of Laboratory Medicine

Check out the website: eacademy.ifcc.org

EFLM-UEMS Joint Congress in Warsaw – Newsletter n. 2

0

The first issue of the newsletter of the 4thJoint EFLM-UEMS Congress in Warsaw: the largest European event in Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Diagnostics in 2016.

Venue: DoubleTreeby Hilton, Warsaw

Read the newsletter to know more, click here.

Key dates:

  • Abstract submission: May 15th
  • Early registration: June 30th
  • On-line registration: August 30th

Further Information:

Digital Biomarkers a Future Driver of Health Data

0

Consumer-facing digital tools have led to the birth of so-called digital biomarkers, which show promise in helping consumers and doctors gain insight on health and disease. However, these new technologies face some roadblocks to being adopted.

A report issued by Rock Health, “The Emerging Influence of Digital Biomarkers on Healthcare,” describes the potential advantages of digital biomarkers and some of the challenges associated with using this tool.

“Digital biomarkers are consumer-generated physiological and behavioral measures collected through connected digital tools,” the report’s authors explained. These new technologies might report previously validated measurements or they might deploy these known measurements for novel insights. For example, blood pressure measurement already provides insight into cardiovascular risk. But it might also be linked to major depression.

Through smartphones, consumers have the flexibility to continuously track their heart rate or blood pressure, rather than occasional checks in clinical settings. This is an example of the “incredible opportunity” digital biomarkers provide for “for fluid data transport with ownership of data shifting from the industry to the consumer,” the authors noted.

For instance, the MyHeartCounts tool enables users to consent to share their cardiovascular health information with a researcher at a university on a daily basis. The more types of health data consumers collect, the more they begin to become data aggregators. “The digital footprint that consumers leave when they engage with the Internet, through web browsing or social media activity, provides novel data that can be leveraged for healthcare purposes,” the authors explained.

Digital biomarkers show promise as a research tool, enabling researchers to collect data over many years. Compared with longitudinal studies such as the Framingham Heart Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Women’s Health Initiative, collecting data through digital biomarkers may be a more feasible and cost-effective way to capture longitudinal data.

The report also envisions integrated panels of traditional and digital biomarkers to better understand how disease states work.

“There is great potential to apply digital biomarkers to medical domains that are not well understood, such as psychiatry and neurology, especially if digital biomarkers are combined into phenotypic signatures,” the authors observed.

Harnessing the full potential of digital biomarkers won’t be a simple process, however. Regulators and researchers alike will be taking steps to validate the reliability and accuracy of these tools. In addition, they will have to clear the big data hurdle, continuously processing and storing vast quantities of data when most electronic medical records aren’t designed to handle such tasks.

“Establishing insightful relationships is only the first step before the industry can truly capitalize on the value of digital biomarkers. Challenges around evidence generation, infrastructure, incentives, and workflow remain,” the authors cautioned.

Source: AACC

IFCC’s Forthcoming Congresses – March Issue

0

Calendar of IFCC Congresses/Conferences and Regional Federation’s Congresses

May 20 – 21, 2016 IFCC Roche Conf Biomarkers in AD Mexico City Mexico City
Nov 26 – 29, 2016 14th Asia-Pacific Federation for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Congress Taipei, TW
Jun 11 – 15, 2017 IFCC-EFLM EuroMedLab 2017 Athens, GR
Sep 17 – 22, 2017 XXIII COLABLIOCLI Congress 2017 and XI Uruguayan Congress of Clinical Biochemistry Punta del Este, UY
Oct 22 – 25, 2017 XXIII IFCC WorldLab 2017 Durban, ZA
May 18 – 23, 2019 IFCC-EFLM EuroMedLab 2019 Barcelona, ES
May 24 – 28, 2020 XXIV IFCC WorldLab 2020 Seoul Seoul, KR

Calendar of events with IFCC auspices

Apr 07 – 09, 2016 Kahramanmaras Thalassemia Symposium I and Course on Hemoglobin Disorders Kahramanmaras, TR
Apr 12 – 12, 2016 POCT COURSE: Importance, diagnostic application and accreditation Mexico City, MX
Apr 19 – 22, 2016 The 9th International and 14th National Congress on Quality Improvement in Clinical Laboratories Teheran, IR
Apr 20 – 22, 2016 10th International Conference of Clinical Laboratory Automation(Cherry Blossom Symposium 2016) Seoul, KR
May 12 – 14, 2016 XIII Baltic Congress of Laboratory Medicine Tartu, EE
May 12 – 13, 2016 XIV Meeting of the SEQC Scientific Committee Madrid, ES
May 18 – 21, 2016 1st Conference of Romanian Association of Laboratory Medicine(RALM) Cluj Napoca, RO
May 18 – 20, 2016 Congreso Nacional de Residentes Bioquimicos Buenos Aires, AR
May 25 – 27, 2016 XX Congress of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Belgrade, SRB
May 26 – 26, 2016 12th EFLM Symposium for Balkan Region Belgrade, SRB
Jun 15 – 18, 2016 XXV European Congress of Perinatal Medicine Maastricht, NL
Sep 21 – 24, 2016 4th Joint EFLM-UEMS Congress “Laboratory Medicine at the Clinical Interface” Warsaw, PL
Sep 29, 2016 SBPC/ML&IFCC Joint Symposium Rio de Janeiro, BR
Oct 20 – 22, 2016 Joint Meeting of the “3rd Congress on Controversies in Thrombosis & Hemostasis” and the “8th Russian Conference on Clinical Hemostasiology and Hermorheology” Moscow, RU
Oct 27 – 27, 2016 International Conference on Laboratory Medicine “Towards performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases of laboratory testing” Padova, IT
Nov 09 – 11, 2016 EFLM Course “Developing medical tests that improve patient outcomes” Leiden, NL
Oct 20 – 22, 2017 XIV International Congress of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine Durban, ZA

 

Time Course and Diagnostic Accuracy of Glial and Neuronal Blood Biomarkers GFAP and UCH-L1 in a Large Cohort of Trauma Patients With and Without Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

0

Authors: Linda Papa, MDCM, MSc; Gretchen M. Brophy, PharmD; Robert D. Welch, MD, MS; Lawrence M. Lewis, MD; Carolina F. Braga, BA; Ciara N. Tan, BS, MHSH; Neema J. Ameli, BS; Marco A. Lopez, AS; Crystal A. Haeussler, BS; Diego I. Mendez Giordano, BS; Salvatore Silvestri, MD; Philip Giordano, MD; Kurt D. Weber, MD; Crystal Hill-Pryor, PhD; Dallas C. Hack, MD, MPH.

Objectives  To evaluate the temporal profiles of GFAP and UCH-L1 in a large cohort of trauma patients seen at the emergency department and to assess their diagnostic accuracy over time, both individually and in combination, for detecting mild to moderate TBI (MMTBI), traumatic intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT), and neurosurgical intervention.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This prospective cohort study enrolled adult trauma patients seen at a level I trauma center from March 1, 2010, to March 5, 2014. All patients underwent rigorous screening to determine whether they had experienced an MMTBI (blunt head trauma with loss of consciousness, amnesia, or disorientation and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9-15). Of 3025 trauma patients assessed, 1030 met eligibility criteria for enrollment, and 446 declined participation. Initial blood samples were obtained in 584 patients enrolled within 4 hours of injury. Repeated blood sampling was conducted at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, and 180 hours after injury.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Diagnosis of MMTBI, presence of traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT scan, and neurosurgical intervention.

Results  A total of 1831 blood samples were drawn from 584 patients (mean [SD] age, 40 [16] years; 62.0% [362 of 584] male) over 7 days. Both GFAP and UCH-L1 were detectible within 1 hour of injury. GFAP peaked at 20 hours after injury and slowly declined over 72 hours. UCH-L1 rose rapidly and peaked at 8 hours after injury and declined rapidly over 48 hours. Over the course of 1 week, GFAP demonstrated a diagnostic range of areas under the curve for detecting MMTBI of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) to 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78-1.00), and UCH-L1 demonstrated a diagnostic range of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.02-0.50) to 0.67 (95% CI, 0.53-0.81). For detecting intracranial lesions on CT, the diagnostic ranges of areas under the curve were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67-0.92) to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-1.00)for GFAP and 0.31 (95% CI, 0-0.63) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.85) for UCH-L1. For distinguishing patients with and without a neurosurgical intervention, the range for GFAP was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) to 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00), and the range for UCH-L1 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0-1.00) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.00).

Conclusions and Relevance  GFAP performed consistently in detecting MMTBI, CT lesions, and neurosurgical intervention across 7 days. UCH-L1 performed best in the early postinjury period.

Source: JAMA Neurology

IFCC’s Conference Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s Disease

0

With the support of Roche Diagnostics. Mexico City May 20th, 2016

Camino Real Hotel, Mexico City 09.30– 19.30.

REGISTRATION FEES:

  • Before April 30th, 2016: $1,750 MEX (*/**)
  • As of May 1st, 2016: $ 2,000 MEX

The registration fee includes:

  1. Coffee Breaks & Lunch as indicated in the programme
  2. Certificate of participation

Cancellations:

  • Registrations cancelled within April 30th, will result in a 20% penalty
  • Cancellations between May 1st – 31st, 2016 will be subject to a 50% penalty
  • Afterwards, registrations will result in a 100% penalty

To make your registration, please access following link: http://www.checkmein.com.mx/Registro/BAD2016/ENG/

*Professionals from IFCC Full and Affiliate Member societies are entitled to 30% discount,
upon presentation of valid membership ID number at registration desk. Payment on site, cash only.

**Students are entitled to 50% discount, upon presentation of a valid ID at the registration
desk. Payment on site, cash only.

Scientific Programme

VENUE

  • HOTEL CAMINO REAL POLANCO
    • Mexico City http://www.caminoreal.com
    • Tel.: +52 (55) 52 63 88 88
    • reservas.mex@caminoreal.com.mx

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

  • Chairs:
    • Dr. Rosa Sierra Amor (Mexico)
    • Prof. Sergio Bernardini (Italy)

TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT

  • BTC (Business Travel Consulting)
  • Email: dmontero@btcamericas.com
  • Av. Insurgentes Sur #1388 – Piso 7
  • Col. Actipan, Del. Benito Juárez,
  • México, D.F. – C.P. 03230

IFCC Office

  • International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  • Via C. Farini, 81 – 20159 Milano-  ITALY
  • email: ifcc@ifcc.org

New Sepsis/Septic Shock Definitions

0

For the first time in 15 years, globally recognized criteria for sepsis and septic shock have been updated. The new definitions were presented at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 45th Critical Care Congress and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Federal regulators and the medical community alike have ramped up their focus on sepsis, a deadly condition that injures organs in response to an infection and can lead to septic shock. It affects at least 3 million patients annually and accounts for more than 5% of all hospital costs. As CLN Stat reported last fall, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Sept. 17, 2015, issued a prescriptive list of new quality reporting measures on how to respond to and treat adult patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock.

Now there are new recommended definitions for these conditions. In 2014, an international task force of medical specialists from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine convened to reassess the clinical criteria for sepsis. A number of symptoms may indicate infection, making sepsis difficult to diagnose. “Because no gold standard diagnostic test exists, the task force sought definitions and supporting clinical criteria that were clear and fulfilled multiple domains of usefulness and validity,” the task force explained in the JAMA article.

The task force also had to consider the medical advances that had taken place since the last time these definitions were revised in 2001 with respect to pathobiology, epidemiology, and management of this condition.

Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, a task force member who chairs the critical care medicine department at the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, explained in a video statement from JAMA why the definition of “sepsis” was ready for an update.

“We noticed that the terminology of sepsis had become incredibly confusing and that a number of terms had become obsolete or outdated. For example, terms such as ‘septicemia’ don’t really help in that many patients can be septic without having positive blood cultures,” Angus said. In addition, clinical criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) haven’t been particularly helpful in diagnosing patients for sepsis.

“We felt it was helpful to have an overarching conceptual definition that better explained what sepsis is,” he said.

The revised definition for sepsis specifies that it is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. “Organ dysfunction” is characterized by an increase of 2 points or more in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, or SOFA, which correlates to an in-house mortality rate of more than 10%.

Septic shock should be classified as a subset of sepsis “in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone,” the task force indicated.

The expectation is this definition “results in greater consistency for epidemiologic studies, clinical trials and—perhaps most important—better recognition and more timely management of patients with, or at risk of developing, sepsis,” said Angus in a statement. The panel characterized septic shock as occurring in patients with sepsis who have two other findings: persistent hypotension that requires vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg; and serum lactate level >2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) despite adequate volume resuscitation. The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with septic shock exceeds 40%, according to the task force.

To rapidly identify and treat adult patients with suspected infection regardless of clinical setting, the revised definition included the “quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment,” or qSOFA. This new bedside clinical score uses three symptoms: respiratory rate ≥22/min, altered mental activity, or systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg. Patients would need to present with at least two of these symptoms to receive treatment outside of an intensive care unit (ICU).

In a comparative analysis of clinical criteria designed to identify patients at risk for sepsis, researchers determined that when patients were identified outside the ICU, qSOFA’s ability to predict in-hospital mortality was superior to other methods such as SOFA and SIRS, “supporting its use as a prompt to consider possible sepsis,” according to the findings, which were published in JAMA.

This new criteria represents the best working definitions of today. However, a “gold standard” for measuring sepsis has yet to be developed, Angus emphasized in the video statement. For this reason, he expects discussions on sepsis measures to continue.

“We do not see this as the end. We welcome efforts both near and in the long term to extensively validate some of these measures such as qSOFA. As we have further advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and pathobiology of sepsis, we welcome the development and incorporation of new biomarkers for sepsis.”

Source: AACC

Agenda

       

Radio El Microscopio

Ze Xiong

Últimas notas publicadas