Rational Development and Application of Biomarkers in the Field of Autoimmunity: A Conceptual Framework Guiding Clinicians and Researchers

Overview

Journal J Transl Autoimmun

Date 2022 Mar 21

PMID 35309737

Authors

Mirjam Kolev

Michael P Horn

Nasser Semmo

Michael Nagler

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Clear guidance is needed in the development and implementation of laboratory biomarkers in medicine. So far, no standardized phased approach is established that would pilot researchers and clinicians in this process. This leads to often incompletely validated biomarkers, which can bear the consequence of wrong applications, misinterpretation and inadequate management in the clinical context. In this conceptual article, we describe a stepwise approach to develop and comprehensively validate laboratory biomarkers. We will delineate basic steps including technical performance, pre-analytical issues, and biological variation, as well as advanced aspects of biomarker utility comprising interpretability, diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, and health-care outcomes. These aspects will be illustrated by using well-known examples from the field of immunology. The application of this conceptual framework will guide researchers in conducting meaningful projects to develop and evaluate biomarkers for the use in clinical practice. Furthermore, clinicians will be able to adequately interpret pre-clinical and clinical diagnostic literature and rationally apply biomarkers in clinical practice. Improvement in the implementation and application of biomarkers might relevantly change the management and outcomes of our patients for the better.

References

Abeles A, Abeles M . The clinical utility of a positive antinuclear antibody test result. Am J Med. 2013; 126(4):342-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.09.014. View

Muhlen C, Torre I, Infantino M, Damoiseaux J, Andrade L, Carballo O . How to report the antinuclear antibodies (anti-cell antibodies) test on HEp-2 cells: guidelines from the ICAP initiative. Immunol Res. 2021; 69(6):594-608. DOI: 10.1007/s12026-021-09233-0. View

Lijmer J, Leeflang M, Bossuyt P . Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29(5):E13-21. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09336144. View

Qin D . Next-generation sequencing and its clinical application. Cancer Biol Med. 2019; 16(1):4-10. PMC: 6528456. DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2018.0055. View

Ortona E, Margutti P, Matarrese P, Franconi F, Malorni W . Redox state, cell death and autoimmune diseases: a gender perspective. Autoimmun Rev. 2008; 7(7):579-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2008.06.001. View

Yoon D, Mansukhani N, Stubbs V, Helenowski I, Woodruff T, Kibbe M . Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery. 2014; 156(3):508-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.07.001. View

Beretta-Piccoli B, Mieli-Vergani G, Vergani D . Serology in autoimmune hepatitis: A clinical-practice approach. Eur J Intern Med. 2017; 48:35-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.10.006. View

Chan E, Damoiseaux J, Carballo O, Conrad K, Cruvinel W, Francescantonio P . Report of the First International Consensus on Standardized Nomenclature of Antinuclear Antibody HEp-2 Cell Patterns 2014-2015. Front Immunol. 2015; 6:412. PMC: 4542633. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00412. View

Altman D, Bland J . Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994; 308(6943):1552. PMC: 2540489. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552. View

10.

Conrad K, Rober N, Andrade L, Mahler M . The Clinical Relevance of Anti-DFS70 Autoantibodies. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016; 52(2):202-216. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-016-8564-5. View

11.

Leeflang M, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Hooft L, Bossuyt P . Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ. 2013; 185(11):E537-44. PMC: 3735771. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.121286. View

12.

. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on hepatitis E virus infection. J Hepatol. 2018; 68(6):1256-1271. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.005. View

13.

Damoiseaux J, von Muhlen C, Torre I, Carballo O, Cruvinel W, Francescantonio P . International consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP): the bumpy road towards a consensus on reporting ANA results. Auto Immun Highlights. 2016; 7(1):1. PMC: 4733811. DOI: 10.1007/s13317-016-0075-0. View

14.

Cinquanta L, Bizzaro N, Pesce G . Standardization and Quality Assessment Under the Perspective of Automated Computer-Assisted HEp-2 Immunofluorescence Assay Systems. Front Immunol. 2021; 12:638863. PMC: 7947926. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.638863. View

15.

Hernandez J . Cost-effectiveness of laboratory testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127(4):440-5. DOI: 10.5858/2003-127-0440-COLT. View

16.

Sun C, Xiao X, Yan L, Sheng L, Wang Q, Jiang P . Histologically proven AMA positive primary biliary cholangitis but normal serum alkaline phosphatase: Is alkaline phosphatase truly a surrogate marker?. J Autoimmun. 2019; 99:33-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.01.005. View

17.

Monaghan P, Lord S, John A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert C, Lennartz L . Biomarker development targeting unmet clinical needs. Clin Chim Acta. 2016; 460:211-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.06.037. View

18.

Meroni P, Schur P . ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 69(8):1420-2. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.127100. View

19.

Altman D, Bland J . Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994; 309(6947):102. PMC: 2540558. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102. View

20.

Tan E . Autoantibodies to nuclear antigens (ANA): their immunobiology and medicine. Adv Immunol. 1982; 33:167-240. DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60836-6. View