Beneficial and detrimental effects of therapy on immunity in breast cancer

New Molecular Mechanisms and Markers in Inflammatory Disorders

Inflammation is the primary response of different disorders, and these encompass a wide range of conditions in various tissues and organs [...].

Endpoints for clinical trials in ophthalmology

With the identification of novel targets, the number of interventional clinical trials in ophthalmology has increased. Visual acuity has for a long time been considered the gold standard endpoint for clinical trials, but in the recent years it became evident that other endpoints are required for many indications including geographic atrophy and inherited retinal disease. In glaucoma the currently available drugs were approved based on their IOP lowering capacity. Some recent findings do, however, indicate that at the same level of IOP reduction, not all drugs have the same effect on visual field progression. For neuroprotection trials in glaucoma, novel surrogate endpoints are required, which may either include functional or structural parameters or a combination of both. A number of potential surrogate endpoints for ophthalmology clinical trials have been identified, but their validation is complicated and requires solid scientific evidence. In this article we summarize candidates for clinical endpoints in ophthalmology with a focus on retinal disease and glaucoma. Functional and structural biomarkers, as well as quality of life measures are discussed, and their potential to serve as endpoints in pivotal trials is critically evaluated.

Global historical retrospect and future prospects on biomarkers of heart failure: A bibliometric analysis and science mapping

Introduction

Heart failure is a rapidly growing public health problem and has become a major cause of hospitalization in middle-aged and older adults. Biomarkers are clinically important in managing heart failure and have attracted more attention from researchers in recent years. This study aimed to evaluate the global research of heart failure biomarkers by bibliometrics and to identify the hot spots and perspectives for further advancement.

Methods

Selection of relevant documents was from the Web of Science Core Collection. Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, SciMA, and CiteSpace software were used for bibliometric analysis.

Results

As of October 29, 2021, 5,978 documents for heart failure biomarkers have been identified from 1989 to 2021. European Journal of Heart Failure and Circulation respectively ranked first in terms of the number of publications and the number of co-citations. A total of 5,698 institutions from 90 countries participated in these publications, with the USA leading with 2,045 documents. The most productive institution was Harvard University. Januzzi, J.L. and Maisel, A.S. were the most productive and most cited authors respectively. Natriuretic peptide, copeptin, valsartan, ferric carboxymaltose, empagliflozin, preserved ejection fraction, myocardial fibrosis, and heart transplantation were hot themes.

Conclusions

Extensive national and inter-institutional collaboration should be enhanced to bridge the gap between developed and less developed countries in heart failure biomarkers research. The research in this field seems to have reached a relatively mature stage, with a decrease in research fervor in recent years. The study of the natriuretic peptide family still has high centrality, with advances in the study of expression products and inflammatory markers. Cardiac fibrosis, cardiac remodeling, and therapies regarding heart failure have become hot spots.

Biomarkers-A General Review

A biomarker is a biological observation that substitutes for and ideally predicts a clinically relevant endpoint or intermediate outcome that is more difficult to observe. The use of clinical biomarkers is easier and less expensive than direct measurement of the final clinical endpoint, and biomarkers are usually measured over a shorter time span. They can be used in disease screening, diagnosis, characterization, and monitoring; as prognostic indicators; for developing individualized therapeutic interventions; for predicting and treating adverse drug reactions; for identifying cell types; and for pharmacodynamic and dose-response studies. To understand the value of a biomarker, it is necessary to know the pathophysiological relationship between the biomarker and the relevant clinical endpoint. Good biomarkers should be measurable with little or no variability, should have a sizeable signal to noise ratio, and should change promptly and reliably in response to changes in the condition or its therapy. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.