lab values

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在临床试验中,以高频率评估实验室值。这对患者来说可能会有压力,资源密集型,并且难以实施,例如在基于办公室的设置中。在未来,多中心2期TITAN-RCC试验(NCT02917772),我们调查了如果不那么频繁地评估实验室值,会遗漏多少相关的实验室值变化.转移性肾细胞癌患者(n=207)接受了基于反应的方法,使用nivolumab和nivolumab+ipilimumab增强治疗无反应。我们模拟了在每个第二剂量之前而不是每个剂量的研究药物之前获得的实验室值。我们评估了白细胞计数升高,丙氨酸氨基转移酶,天冬氨酸转氨酶,胆红素,肌酐,淀粉酶,脂肪酶,和促甲状腺激素.根据研究方案定义剂量延迟和停药标准。随着实验室分析频率的降低,很少错过剂量延迟标准:在纳武单抗单药治疗期间,最高<0.1%(3/4382)的评估(1%[2/207]的患者),在纳武单抗+伊匹单抗强化治疗期间,最高为0.2%(1/465)的评估(1%[1/132]的患者).一个例外是脂肪酶相关的剂量延迟,在nivolumab单药治疗期间,在0.6%(25/4204)的评估(7%[15/207]的患者)和0.8%(4/480)的评估(3%[4/134]的患者)在nivolumab+ipilimumab增强期间,但需要出现症状。在nivolumab单药治疗期间,只有淀粉酶(<0.1%[1/3965]的评估[0.5%(1/207)的患者]才会错过停药标准,在nivolumab+ipilimumab期间没有)和脂肪酶(0.1%[5/4204]的评估[2%(4/207)的患者]在nivolumab单药治疗期间;0.2%[1/480]的评估[0.7%(1/134)的患者]在nivolumab+ipilimumab期间).然而,只有有症状的患者会因为淀粉酶或脂肪酶实验室值而不得不停止治疗.总之,在接受nivolumab或nivolumab+ipilimumab治疗的无症状转移性肾细胞癌患者中,减少实验室检查频率似乎是可以接受的.
    In clinical trials, laboratory values are assessed with high frequency. This can be stressful for patients, resource intensive, and difficult to implement, for example in office-based settings. In the prospective, multicentre phase 2 TITAN-RCC trial (NCT02917772), we investigated how many relevant changes in laboratory values would have been missed if laboratory values had been assessed less frequently. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 207) received a response-based approach with nivolumab and nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts for non-response. We simulated that laboratory values were obtained before every second dose instead of every dose of the study drug(s). We assessed elevated leukocyte counts, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, creatinine, amylase, lipase, and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Dose delay and discontinuation criteria were defined according to the study protocol. With the reduced frequency of laboratory analyses, dose delay criteria were rarely missed: in a maximum of <0.1% (3/4382) of assessments (1% [2/207] of patients) during nivolumab monotherapy and in a maximum of 0.2% (1/465) of assessments (1% [1/132] of patients) during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts. An exception was lipase-related dose delay which would have been missed in 0.6% (25/4204) of assessments (7% [15/207] of patients) during nivolumab monotherapy and in 0.8% (4/480) of assessments (3% [4/134] of patients) during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts, but would have required the presence of symptoms. Discontinuation criteria would have only been missed for amylase (<0.1% [1/3965] of assessments [0.5% (1/207) of patients] during nivolumab monotherapy, none during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts) and lipase (0.1% [5/4204] of assessments [2% (4/207) of patients] during nivolumab monotherapy; 0.2% [1/480] of assessments [0.7% (1/134) of patients] during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts). However, only symptomatic patients would have had to discontinue treatment due to amylase or lipase laboratory values. In conclusion, a reduced frequency of laboratory testing appears to be acceptable in asymptomatic patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    静脉血栓栓塞在住院COVID-19患者中普遍存在。通过系统评价和荟萃分析,我们调查了有(+)和无(-)静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)的住院COVID-19患者的临床特征和结局的差异.45项研究共8859名患者被纳入定性综合。随后,38项研究共7847名患者,进行了定量分析。VTE(-)和VTE(+)住院COVID-19患者的死亡率无差异(RR1.32(0.97,1.79);0.07;I264%,p​<​0.001)。患有VTE(+)的患者更有可能进入重症监护病房(RR1.77(1.26,2.50);p<0.001;I263%,p​=0.03)和机械通风(RR2.35(1.22,4.53);p​=0.01;I288%,p​<​0.001)。此外,男性(RR1.19(1.14,1.24),p<0.001;I20%,p​=​0.68),增加了VTE的风险。关于患者实验室值,VTE(+)与白细胞升高显著相关,中性粒细胞计数,D-二聚体,丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT),乳酸脱氢酶(LDH),和C反应蛋白(CRP),随着凝血酶原时间延长。相反,VTE(+)与较低的白蛋白和中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比率(NLR)相关。这一发现为住院COVID-19患者VTE的风险分层提供了初步框架。
    Venous thromboembolism is prevalent in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, we have investigated the differences in clinical characteristics and outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with (+) and without (-) venous thromboembolism (VTE). 45 studies with a total of 8859 patients were included in the qualitative synthesis. Subsequently, 38 studies with a total of 7847 patients, were quantitatively analyzed. There was no mortality difference between the VTE (-) and VTE (+) hospitalized COVID-19 patients (RR1.32 (0.97, 1.79); 0.07; I2 64%, p ​< ​0.001). Patients with VTE (+) were more likely to get admitted to the intensive care unit (RR1.77 (1.26, 2.50); p ​< ​0.001; I2 63%, p ​= ​0.03) and mechanically ventilated (RR 2.35 (1.22, 4.53); p ​= ​0.01; I2 88%, p ​< ​0.001). Moreover, male gender (RR 1.19 (1.14,1.24), p ​< ​0.001; I2 0%, p ​= ​0.68), increased the risk of VTE. Regarding patients lab values\', VTE (+) was significantly associated with higher white blood cell, neutrophil count, D-Dimer, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and C-reactive protein (CRP), along with prolonged prothrombin time. On the contrary, VTE (+) was associated with lower albumin and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). This findings provide the initial framework for risk stratification of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with VTE.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:近年来,医学知识和健康数据的数量迅速增加。例如,电子健康记录(EHR)可用性的提高提供了准确的,最新的,并在护理点完成有关患者的信息,使医务人员能够快速访问患者记录,以实现更协调和有效的护理。随着知识的增加,准确的复杂性,循证医学一直在增长。卫生保健工作者必须处理越来越多的数据和文档。同时,相关的患者数据经常被一层不太相关的数据所掩盖,导致医务人员经常错过重要的价值观或异常趋势及其对患者病情进展的重要性。
    目的:这项工作的目的是分析重症监护病房(ICU)患者的当前实验室检查结果,并在下一次检查时对这些实验室值进行分类。检测近期的异常情况有助于支持临床医生在ICU的决策过程中,将注意力集中在重要的价值上,并专注于未来的实验室测试。节省他们的时间和金钱。此外,这将给医生更多的时间和病人在一起,而不是略读一长串的实验室值。
    方法:我们使用结构化查询语言从MIMIC-III和eICU数据集中提取了ICU中机械通气患者的25个实验室值。此外,我们应用了时间窗口采样和保持,和支持向量机来填充稀疏时间序列中的缺失值,以及Tukey范围来检测和删除异常。然后,我们使用数据训练了4个深度学习模型进行时间序列分类,以及基于梯度提升的算法,并比较了它们在两个数据集上的性能。
    结果:在这项工作中测试的模型(深度神经网络和梯度提升),结合预处理管道,在多标签分类任务中实现了至少80%的准确率。此外,基于多个卷积神经网络的模型在两个数据集上都优于其他算法,精度超过89%。
    结论:在这项工作中,我们表明,使用机器学习和深度神经网络来预测实验室值的近期异常可以达到令人满意的结果。我们的系统受过训练,已验证,并在2个众所周知的数据集上进行测试,以确保我们的系统尽可能弥合现实差距。最后,该模型可与我们在实际EHR上的预处理管道结合使用,以改善患者的诊断和治疗.
    BACKGROUND: In recent years, the volume of medical knowledge and health data has increased rapidly. For example, the increased availability of electronic health records (EHRs) provides accurate, up-to-date, and complete information about patients at the point of care and enables medical staff to have quick access to patient records for more coordinated and efficient care. With this increase in knowledge, the complexity of accurate, evidence-based medicine tends to grow all the time. Health care workers must deal with an increasing amount of data and documentation. Meanwhile, relevant patient data are frequently overshadowed by a layer of less relevant data, causing medical staff to often miss important values or abnormal trends and their importance to the progression of the patient\'s case.
    OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work is to analyze the current laboratory results for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and classify which of these lab values could be abnormal the next time the test is done. Detecting near-future abnormalities can be useful to support clinicians in their decision-making process in the ICU by drawing their attention to the important values and focus on future lab testing, saving them both time and money. Additionally, it will give doctors more time to spend with patients, rather than skimming through a long list of lab values.
    METHODS: We used Structured Query Language to extract 25 lab values for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU from the MIMIC-III and eICU data sets. Additionally, we applied time-windowed sampling and holding, and a support vector machine to fill in the missing values in the sparse time series, as well as the Tukey range to detect and delete anomalies. Then, we used the data to train 4 deep learning models for time series classification, as well as a gradient boosting-based algorithm and compared their performance on both data sets.
    RESULTS: The models tested in this work (deep neural networks and gradient boosting), combined with the preprocessing pipeline, achieved an accuracy of at least 80% on the multilabel classification task. Moreover, the model based on the multiple convolutional neural network outperformed the other algorithms on both data sets, with the accuracy exceeding 89%.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this work, we show that using machine learning and deep neural networks to predict near-future abnormalities in lab values can achieve satisfactory results. Our system was trained, validated, and tested on 2 well-known data sets to ensure that our system bridged the reality gap as much as possible. Finally, the model can be used in combination with our preprocessing pipeline on real-life EHRs to improve patients\' diagnosis and treatment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号