4.1 Review

Taking a new biomarker into routine use - A perspective from the routine clinical biochemistry laboratory

Journal

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
Volume 4, Issue 12, Pages 892-903

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201000073

Keywords

Analytical performance; Biomarker efficacy; Biomarker evaluation; Clinical biochemistry; Pre-analytical requirements

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is increasing pressure to provide cost-effective healthcare based on best practice. Consequently, new biomarkers are only likely to be introduced into routine clinical biochemistry departments if they are supported by a strong evidence base and if the results will improve patient management and outcome. This requires convincing evidence of the benefits of introducing the new test, ideally reflected in fewer hospital admissions, fewer additional investigations and/or fewer clinic visits. Carefully designed audit and cost-benefit studies in relevant patient groups must demonstrate that introducing the biomarker delivers an improved and more effective clinical pathway. From the laboratory perspective, pre-analytical requirements must be thoroughly investigated at an early stage. Good stability of the biomarker in relevant physiological matrices is essential to avoid the need for special processing. Absence of specific timing requirements for sampling and knowledge of the effect of medications that might be used to treat the patients in whom the biomarker will be measured is also highly desirable. Analytically, automation is essential in modern high-throughput clinical laboratories. Assays must therefore be robust, fulfilling standard requirements for linearity on dilution, precision and reproducibility, both within-and between-run. Provision of measurements by a limited number of specialized reference laboratories may be most appropriate, especially when a new biomarker is first introduced into routine practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available