Serum proteomic analysis focused on fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C virus infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite its widespread use to assess fibrosis, liver biopsy has several important drawbacks, including that is it semi-quantitative, invasive, and limited by sampling and observer variability. Non-invasive serum biomarkers may more accurately reflect the fibrogenetic process. To identify potential biomarkers of fibrosis, we compared serum protein expression profiles in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) virus infection and fibrosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty-one patients with no or mild fibrosis (METAVIR stage F0, F1) and 23 with advanced fibrosis (F3, F4) were retrospectively identified from a pedigreed database of 1600 CHC patients. All samples were carefully phenotyped and matched for age, gender, race, body mass index, genotype, duration of infection, alcohol use, and viral load. Expression profiling was performed in a blinded fashion using a 2D polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis/LC-MS/MS platform. Partial least squares discriminant analysis and likelihood ratio statistics were used to rank individual differences in protein expression between the 2 groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven individual protein spots were identified as either significantly increased (α₂-macroglobulin, haptoglobin, albumin) or decreased (complement C-4, serum retinol binding protein, apolipoprotein A-1, and two isoforms of apolipoprotein A-IV) with advanced fibrosis. Three individual proteins, haptoglobin, apolipoprotein A-1, and α₂-macroglobulin, are included in existing non-invasive serum marker panels.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Biomarkers identified through expression profiling may facilitate the development of more accurate marker algorithms to better quantitate hepatic fibrosis and monitor disease progression.</p

Factors influencing the participation of gastroenterologists and hepatologists in clinical research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although clinical research is integral to the advancement of medical knowledge, physicians face a variety of obstacles to their participation as investigators in clinical trials. We examined factors that influence the participation of gastroenterologists and hepatologists in clinical research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed 1050 members of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases regarding their participation in clinical research. We compared the survey responses by specialty and level of clinical trial experience.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A majority of the respondents (71.6%) reported involvement in research activities. Factors most influential in clinical trial participation included funding and compensation (88.3%) and intellectual pursuit (87.8%). Barriers to participation were similar between gastroenterologists (n = 160) and hepatologists (n = 189) and between highly experienced (n = 62) and less experienced (n = 159) clinical researchers. These barriers included uncompensated research costs and lack of specialized support. Industry marketing was a greater influence among respondents with less trial experience, compared to those with extensive experience (15.7% vs 1.6%; <it>P </it>< .01). Hepatologists and respondents with extensive clinical trial experience tended to be more interested in phase 1 and 2 studies, whereas gastroenterologists and less experienced investigators were more interested in phase 4 studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study suggests that the greatest barrier to participation in clinical research is lack of adequate resources. Respondents also favored industry-sponsored research with less complex trial protocols and studies of relatively short duration.</p

Monitoring quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A modified delphi consensus

Although there are several established international guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information detailing specific indicators of good quality care. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of quality indicators (QIs) to underpin the management of HCC. We undertook a modified, two-round, Delphi consensus study comprising a working group and experts involved in the management of HCC as well as consumer representatives. QIs were derived from an extensive review of the literature. The role of the participants was to identify the most important and measurable QIs for inclusion in an HCC clinical quality registry. From an initial 94 QIs, 40 were proposed to the participants. Of these, 23 QIs ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set. This included (a) nine related to the initial diagnosis and staging, including timing to diagnosis, required baseline clinical and laboratory assessments, prior surveillance for HCC, diagnostic imaging and pathology, tumor staging, and multidisciplinary care; (b) thirteen related to treatment and management, including role of antiviral therapy, timing to treatment, localized ablation and locoregional therapy, surgery, transplantation, systemic therapy, method of response assessment, and supportive care; and (c) one outcome assessment related to surgical mortality. Conclusion: We identified a core set of nationally agreed measurable QIs for the diagnosis, staging, and management of HCC. The adherence to these best practice QIs may lead to system-level improvement in quality of care and, ultimately, improvement in patient outcomes, including survival