Testing for allergic disease: parameters considered and test value

Evaluation of the clinical utility of the PromarkerD in-vitro test in predicting diabetic kidney disease and rapid renal decline through a conjoint analysis

Background

Early identification of patients at risk of developing diabetic kidney disease or rapid renal decline is imperative for appropriate patient management, but traditional methods of predicting renal decline are limited.

Objective

This study evaluated the impact of PromarkerD, a biomarker-based blood test predicting the risk of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and rapid renal decline.

Methods

Conjoint analysis clarified the importance of PromarkerD and other patient attributes to physician decisions for type 2 diabetes patients. Forty-two patient profiles were generated, with varying levels of albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), age, and PromarkerD result. A web-based survey asked each physician to make monitoring/treatment decisions about eight randomly selected profiles. Data were analyzed using multivariable logit models.

Results

Two hundred three primary care physicians and 197 endocrinologists completed the survey. PromarkerD result was most important for increasing the frequency of risk factor monitoring. PromarkerD was second to HbA1c in importance for deciding to prescribe sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2s) with a DKD indication, second to blood pressure for increasing the dose of lisinopril, and second to eGFR for replacing ibuprofen with a non-nephrotoxic medication. Compared with no PromarkerD results, a high-risk PromarkerD result was associated with significantly higher odds of increasing monitoring frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 2.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.90–3.45), prescribing SGLT2s (OR: 1.98 [1.56–2.52]), increasing lisinopril dose (OR: 1.48 [1.17–1.87]), and replacing ibuprofen (OR: 1.78 [1.32–2.40]). A low-risk PromarkerD result was associated with significantly lower odds of increasing monitoring frequency (OR: 0.48 [0.37–0.64]), prescribing SGLT2s (OR: 0.70 [0.56–0.88]), and replacing ibuprofen (OR: 0.75 [0.57–0.99]).

Conclusion

PromarkerD could increase adoption of renoprotective interventions in patients at high risk for renal decline and lower the likelihood of aggressive treatment in those at low risk. Further studies are needed to assess patient outcomes with PromarkerD in real-world practice.

Association between skin prick test and serum specific immunoglobulin E to American cockroach allergens in allergic rhinitis patients

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

American cockroach is a common aeroallergen sensitization in allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. Association between skin prick test (SPT) and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) to American cockroach allergen remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the association between SPT and sIgE to American cockroach allergen in patients with AR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Thai AR patients aged 6-25 years from September 2013 to October 2014. SPT and sIgE to American cockroach allergen were performed and the correlation was calculated using SPSS Statistics version 18.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven AR patients, with median age of 15 years were included in this study. SPT and sIgE to American cockroach allergen showed a positive result in 68.7% and 58.2% cases, respectively. Positive SPT or positive sIgE to American cockroach was found in 79.1%. Thirty-two patients (47.8%) tested positive for both SPT and sIgE to American cockroach allergen. Fourteen from a total of 67 cases (20.9%) with negative sIgE had positive SPT to American cockroach, while seven cases (10.4%) with negative SPT had positive sIgE to American cockroach. Moderate correlation was observed between mean wheal diameter (MWD) and sIgE level to American cockroach (r=0.465, p=0.001). No significant correlation was found between MWD of SPT or sIgE level to American cockroach and AR severity.

CONCLUSION

A moderate correlation was observed between MWD of SPT and sIgE level to American cockroach. If SPT is negative in allergic rhinitis patients highly suspected of having American cockroach allergy, serum sIgE should be considered and vice versa.

Clinicians' overestimation of febrile child risk assessment

We aimed to estimate clinicians' based risk thresholds at which febrile children would be managed as serious bacterial infections (SBI) to determine influencing characteristics and to compare thresholds with prediction model (Feverkidstool) risk estimates. Twenty-one video vignettes of febrile children visiting the emergency department (ED) were assessed by 42 (40.4 %) international paediatricians/paediatric emergency clinicians. Questions were related to clinical risk scores of the child having SBI and SBI management decisions on visual analogue scales. Feverkidstool risk scores were based on clinical signs/symptoms and C-reactive protein. Amongst vignettes assigned to SBI management, the median risk was 60 % (interquartile range (IQR) 30.0-80.5) and 16.0 % (IQR 5.0-32.0) when vignettes were not managed as SBI. Ill appearance and aberrant circulatory signs were the most influencing factors, as age and duration of fever were the least influencing factors on SBI management decisions. Feverkidstool risk scores varied from 13 % (IQR 7.7-28.1) for SBI management to 7.3 % (IQR 5.7-16.3) for no SBI management.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians assigned high risk scores to children who they would have managed as SBI, mostly influenced by ill appearance and aberrant circulation. In contrast to SBI risk assessment of the Feverkidstool, clinicians' appeared to apply a more stepwise assessment of the risk of presence/absence of SBI at different steps in the diagnostic and therapeutic process. Uniform risk thresholds at which one should start SBI management in febrile children remains unclear; risk thresholds at which we refrained from SBI management were more consistent.

WHAT IS KNOWN

•Only a small proportion of febrile children presenting to the emergency department will have serious bacterial infections (SBI) and uniform risk thresholds to start or withhold SBI treatment are not known. •The low prevalence of SBI and consequently the low exposure of clinicians to these infections make them rely more on alarming signs or clinical decision rules. What is New: •Previously identified model predictors for SBI appeared to be significantly influencing factors in clinicians' febrile child management in emergency care. •Clinicians' wielded higher risk thresholds regarding SBI febrile child management than reflected by the clinical prediction model while smaller differences in risk thresholds between clinical and model prediction were observed when clinicians refrained from SBI management.

Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment

Background:

Patients' preferences are important for shared decision making. Therefore, we investigated patients' and urologists' preferences for treatment alternatives for early prostate cancer (PC).

Methods:

A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 150 patients who were waiting for their biopsy results, and 150 urologists. Regression analysis was used to determine patients' and urologists' stated preferences using scenarios based on PC treatment modality (radiotherapy, surgery, and active surveillance (AS)), and risks of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Results:

The response rate was 110 out of 150 (73%) for patients and 50 out of 150 (33%) for urologists. Risk of urinary incontinence was an important determinant of both patients' and urologists' stated preferences for PC treatment (P<0.05). Treatment modality also influenced patients' stated preferences (P<0.05), whereas the risk of erectile dysfunction due to radiotherapy was mainly important to urologists (P<0.05). Both patients and urologists preferred AS to radical treatment, with the exception of patients with anxious/depressed feelings who preferred radical treatment to AS.

Conclusion:

Although patients and urologists generally may prefer similar treatments for PC, they showed different trade-offs between various specific treatment aspects. This implies that urologists need to be aware of potential differences compared with the patient's perspective on treatment decisions in shared decision making on PC treatment.