PloS one · 2022
Evaluation of the clinical utility of the PromarkerD in-vitro test in predicting diabetic kidney disease and rapid renal decline through a conjoint analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fusfeld Lauren, Murphy Jessica T, Yoon YooJin, Kam Li Ying, Peters Kirsten E, Lin Tan Pearl, Shanik Michael, Turchin Alexander
Аннотация
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.
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.