On the Question of Sporadic or Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

TOC Summary: Atypical BSE is probably not sporadic and not related to sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Statistical challenges in the development and evaluation of marker-based clinical tests

Exciting new technologies for assessing markers in human specimens are now available to evaluate unprecedented types and numbers of variations in DNA, RNA, proteins, or biological structures such as chromosomes. These markers, whether viewed individually, or collectively as a 'signature', have the potential to be useful for disease risk assessment, screening, early detection, prognosis, therapy selection, and monitoring for therapy effectiveness or disease recurrence. Successful translation from basic research findings to clinically useful test requires basic, translational, and regulatory sciences and a collaborative effort among individuals with varied types of expertise including laboratory scientists, technology developers, clinicians, statisticians, and bioinformaticians. The focus of this commentary is the many statistical challenges in translational marker research, specifically in the development and validation of marker-based tests that have clinical utility for therapeutic decision-making

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials.

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration

Abstract High-throughput ‘omics’ technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134536/1/12916_2013_Article_1104.pd

School-based relationship and sexuality education intervention engaging adolescent boys for the reductions of teenage pregnancy: the JACK cluster RCT

BACKGROUND: The need to engage boys in gender-transformative relationships and sexuality education (RSE) to reduce adolescent pregnancy is endorsed by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of If I Were Jack on the avoidance of unprotected sex and other sexual health outcomes. DESIGN: A cluster randomised trial, incorporating health economics and process evaluations. SETTING: Sixty-six schools across the four nations of the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Students aged 13-14 years. INTERVENTION: A school-based, teacher-delivered, gender-transformative RSE intervention (If I Were Jack) versus standard RSE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported avoidance of unprotected sex (sexual abstinence or reliable contraceptive use at last sex) after 12-14 months. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, attitudes, skills, intentions and sexual behaviours. RESULTS: The analysis population comprised 6556 students: 86.6% of students in the intervention group avoided unprotected sex, compared with 86.4% in the control group {adjusted odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.26], p = 0.42}. An exploratory post hoc analysis showed no difference for sexual abstinence [78.30% intervention group vs. 78.25% control group; adjusted odds ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.24), p = 0.39], but more intervention group students than control group students used reliable contraception at last sex [39.62% vs. 26.36%; adjusted odds ratio 0.52 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.920), p = 0.025]. Students in schools allocated to receive the intervention had significantly higher scores on knowledge [adjusted mean difference 0.18 (95% CI 0.024 to 0.34), p = 0.02], gender-equitable attitudes and intentions to avoid unintended pregnancy [adjusted mean difference 0.61 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.07), p = 0.01] than students in schools allocated to receive the control. There were positive but non-significant differences in sexual self-efficacy and communication skills. The total mean incremental cost of the intervention compared with standard RSE was £2.83 (95% CI -£2.64 to £8.29) per student. Over a 20-year time horizon, the intervention is likely to be cost-effective owing to its impact on unprotected sex because it would result in 379 (95% CI 231 to 477) fewer unintended pregnancies, 680 (95% CI 189 to 1467) fewer sexually transmitted infections and a gain of 10 (95% CI 5 to 16) quality-adjusted life-years per 100,000 students for a cost saving of £9.89 (95% CI -£15.60 to -£3.83). LIMITATIONS: The trial is underpowered to detect some effects because four schools withdrew and the intraclass correlation coefficient (0.12) was larger than that in sample size calculation (0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We present, to our knowledge, the first evidence from a randomised trial that a school-based, male engagement gender-transformative RSE intervention, although not effective in increasing avoidance of unprotected sex (defined as sexual abstinence or use of reliable contraception at last sex) among all students, did increase the use of reliable contraception at last sex among students who were, or became, sexually active by 12-14 months after the intervention. The trial demonstrated that engaging all adolescents early through RSE is important so that, as they become sexually active, rates of unprotected sex are reduced, and that doing so is likely to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Future studies should consider the longer-term effects of gender-transformative RSE as students become sexually active. Gender-transformative RSE could be adapted to address broader sexual health and other settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10751359. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (PHR 15/181/01) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality

Human biospecimens are subject to a number of different collection, processing, and storage factors that can significantly alter their molecular composition and consistency. These biospecimen preanalytical factors, in turn, influence experimental outcomes and the ability to reproduce scientific results. Currently, the extent and type of information specific to the biospecimen preanalytical conditions reported in scientific publications and regulatory submissions varies widely. To improve the quality of research utilizing human tissues, it is critical that information regarding the handling of biospecimens be reported in a thorough, accurate, and standardized manner. The Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality recommendations outlined herein are intended to apply to any study in which human biospecimens are used. The purpose of reporting these details is to supply others, from researchers to regulators, with more consistent and standardized information to better evaluate, interpret, compare, and reproduce the experimental results. The Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality guidelines are proposed as an important and timely resource tool to strengthen communication and publications around biospecimen-related research and help reassure patient contributors and the advocacy community that the contributions are valued and respected.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90474/1/bio-2E2010-2E0036.pd

Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ)

Human biospecimens are subjected to collection, processing, and storage that can significantly alter their molecular composition and consistency. These biospecimen preanalytical factors, in turn, influence experimental outcomes and the ability to reproduce scientific results. Currently, the extent and type of information specific to the biospecimen preanalytical conditions reported in scientific publications and regulatory submissions varies widely. To improve the quality of research that uses human tissues, it is crucial that information on the handling of biospecimens be reported in a thorough, accurate, and standardized manner. The Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ) recommendations outlined herein are intended to apply to any study in which human biospecimens are used. The purpose of reporting these details is to supply others, from researchers to regulators, with more consistent and standardized information to better evaluate, interpret, compare, and reproduce the experimental results. The BRISQ guidelines are proposed as an important and timely resource tool to strengthen communication and publications on biospecimen-related research and to help reassure patient contributors and the advocacy community that their contributions are valued and respected. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2011. Published 2011 by the American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83764/1/20147_ftp.pd

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration

The REMARK “elaboration and explanation” guideline, by Doug Altman and colleagues, provides a detailed reference for authors on important issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker prognostic studies