Closing the gaps in patient management of dyslipidemia: stepping into cardiovascular precision diagnostics with apolipoprotein profiling

In persons with dyslipidemia, a high residual risk of cardiovascular disease remains despite lipid lowering therapy. Current cardiovascular risk prediction mainly focuses on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels, neglecting other contributing risk factors. Moreover, the efficacy of LDL-c lowering by statins resulting in reduced cardiovascular risk is only partially effective. Secondly, from a metrological viewpoint LDL-c falls short as a reliable measurand. Both direct and calculated LDL-c tests produce inaccurate test results at the low end under aggressive lipid lowering therapy. As LDL-c tests underperform both clinically and metrologically, there is an urging need for molecularly defined biomarkers. Over the years, apolipoproteins have emerged as promising biomarkers in the context of cardiovascular disease as they are the functional workhorses in lipid metabolism. Among these, apolipoprotein B (ApoB), present on all atherogenic lipoprotein particles, has demonstrated to clinically outperform LDL-c. Other apolipoproteins, such as Apo(a) - the characteristic apolipoprotein of the emerging risk factor lipoprotein(a) -, and ApoC-III - an inhibitor of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein clearance -, have attracted attention as well. To support personalized medicine, we need to move to molecularly defined risk markers, like the apolipoproteins. Molecularly defined diagnosis and molecularly targeted therapy require molecularly measured biomarkers. This review provides a summary of the scientific validity and (patho)physiological role of nine serum apolipoproteins, Apo(a), ApoB, ApoC-I, ApoC-II, ApoC-III, ApoE and its phenotypes, ApoA-I, ApoA-II, and ApoA-IV, in lipid metabolism, their association with cardiovascular disease, and their potential as cardiovascular risk markers when measured in a multiplex apolipoprotein panel.

Viral pathogen detection using multiplex gastrointestinal molecular panels: The pros and cons of viral target inclusion

Diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections has been revolutionized by the development of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) multiplex molecular panels for the detection of viral nucleic acids. In addition to a high degree of accuracy, these panels are commercially available and relatively simple to perform in the clinical laboratory. However, use of these panels must be carefully considered owing to the laboratory costs of the test, limited reimbursement, and potential for overuse. In this review from the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, we focus on the viral components of GI multiplex panels (GIPs), presenting a brief overview of pathogens included on most panels and a discussion of advantages and challenges of the inclusion of viral targets on GIPs that should be considered before implementation in the clinical laboratory.

Multiparametric autoantibody analysis: a new paradigm for the diagnosis of connective tissue diseases

BACKGROUND

In patients affected by connective tissue diseases (CTDs), the identification of wide autoantibody profiles may prove useful in early diagnosis, in the evaluation of prognosis (risk stratification), and in predicting response to therapy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of multiparametric autoantibody analysis performed by a new fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) digital system in a large multicenter cohort of CTD patients and controls.

METHODS

Serum samples from 787 patients with CTD (166 systemic lupus erythematosus; 133 systemic sclerosis; 279 Sjögren's syndrome; 106 idiopathic inflammatory myopathies; 103 undifferentiated CTD), 339 patients with other disorders (disease controls) (118 infectious diseases, 110 organ-specific autoimmune diseases, 111 other rheumatic diseases), and 121 healthy subjects were collected in 13 rheumatologic centers of the FIRMA group. Sera were analyzed with the Aptiva-PMAT instrument (Inova Diagnostics) for a panel of 29 autoantibodies.

RESULTS

Multiparametric logistic regression showed that enlarged antibody profiles have a higher diagnostic efficiency than that of individual antibodies or of antibodies that constitute classification criteria for a given disease and that probability of disease increases with multiple positive autoantibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study that analyzes the clinical and diagnostic impact of autoantibody profiling in CTD. The results obtained with the new Aptiva-PMAT method may open interesting perspectives in the diagnosis and sub-classification of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases.

Broad respiratory testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 viral co-circulation and inform diagnostic stewardship in the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection can present with a broad clinical differential that includes many other respiratory viruses; therefore, accurate tests are crucial to distinguish true COVID-19 cases from pathogens that do not require urgent public health interventions. Co-circulation of other respiratory viruses is largely unknown during the COVID-19 pandemic but would inform strategies to rapidly and accurately test patients with respiratory symptoms.

METHODS

This study retrospectively examined 298,415 respiratory specimens collected from symptomatic patients for SARS-CoV-2 testing in the three months since COVID-19 was initially documented in the province of Alberta, Canada (March-May, 2020). By focusing on 52,285 specimens that were also tested with the Luminex Respiratory Pathogen Panel for 17 other pathogens, this study examines the prevalence of 18 potentially co-circulating pathogens and their relative rates in prior years versus since COVID-19 emerged, including four endemic coronaviruses.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 2.2% of all specimens. Parallel broad multiplex testing detected additional pathogens in only 3.4% of these SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens: significantly less than in SARS-CoV-2-negative specimens (p < 0.0001), suggesting very low rates of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection. Furthermore, the overall co-infection rate was significantly lower among specimens with SARS-CoV-2 detected (p < 0.0001). Finally, less than 0.005% of all specimens tested positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and any of the four endemic coronaviruses tested, strongly suggesting neither co-infection nor cross-reactivity between these coronaviruses.

CONCLUSIONS

Broad respiratory pathogen testing rarely detected additional pathogens in SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens. While helpful to understand co-circulation of respiratory viruses causing similar symptoms as COVID-19, ultimately these broad tests were resource-intensive and inflexible in a time when clinical laboratories face unprecedented demand for respiratory virus testing, with further increases expected during influenza season. A transition from broad, multiplex tests toward streamlined diagnostic algorithms targeting respiratory pathogens of public health concern could simultaneously reduce the overall burden on clinical laboratories while prioritizing testing of pathogens of public health importance. This is particularly valuable with ongoing strains on testing resources, exacerbated during influenza seasons.

Feasibility of Qualitative Testing of BCR-ABL and JAK2 V617F in Suspected Myeloproliperative Neoplasm (MPN) Using RT-PCR Reversed Dot Blot Hybridization (RT-PCR RDB)

BACKGROUND

Defining the presence of BCR-ABL transcript in suspected myeloproliferative neoplasm is essential in establishing chronic myeloid leukemia. In the absence of BCR-ABL, the conventional diagnostic algorithm recommends JAK2 V617F mutation testing to support diagnosis of other MPN diseases such as polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis. In certain cases of thrombocythemia, simultaneous upfront testing of both BCR-ABL and JAK2 may be desirable. We wanted to test the feasibility of multiplex detection of BCR-ABL transcript variants and JAK2 V617F mutation simultaneously using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based reverse dot-blot hybridization (RDB) method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Separate biotinylated RT-PCR primers were designed to amplify specific BCR-ABL transcripts and JAK2 V617F mutant alleles. Specific hybridization of RT-PCR products with arrays of membrane-bound probes followed by colorimetric development would allow simultaneous visualization of BCR-ABL and/or JAK2 mutant transcripts in a given specimen. To validate the RDB method, we used cDNA specimens previously referred to our laboratory for routine clinical testing of BCR-ABL and/or JAK2.

RESULTS

The limit of detection or analytical sensitivity of the RDB method using cDNA specimens was 0.5% and 6.25% in detecting BCR-ABL and JAK2 mutant transcripts, respectively. The diagnostic specificity and sensitivity to detect BCR-ABL and JAK2 were 100% and 92.3% (N = 38); and 100% and 100% (N = 27), respectively. RDB also detected BCR-ABL transcripts in 22% of JAK2 V617F mutation-positive samples (N = 14).

CONCLUSIONS

RT-PCR RDB is a promising qualitative multiplex method to detect BCR-ABL and JAK2 mutant transcripts simultaneously.

Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in a rural Familial Cancer Program

This study explores our Familial Cancer Program's experience implementing multi-gene panel testing in a largely rural patient population. We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing panel testing between May 2011 and August 2015. Our goal was to evaluate factors that might be predictors of identifying variants (pathogenic or uncertain significance) and to assess clinical management changes due to testing. We utilized a structured family history tool to determine the significance of patient's family histories with respect to identification of genetic variants. A total of 227 patients underwent panel testing at our center and 67 patients (29.5 %) had variants identified, with 8 (3.5 %) having multiple variants. Overall, 44 patients (19.4 %) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and 28 patients (12.3 %) had a pathogenic variant detected, with 10 (4.4 %) having pathogenic variants in highly penetrant genes. We found no statistical difference in patient familial and personal cancer history, age, rural status, Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, insurance coverage and prior single-gene testing among those with pathogenic, VUS and negative panel testing results. There were no predictors of pathogenic variants on regression analysis. Panel testing changed cancer screening and management guidelines from that expected based on family history alone in 13.2 % of patients. Ultimately, cancer panel testing does yield critical information not identified by traditional single gene testing but maximal utility through a broad range of personal and family histories requires improved interpretation of variants.