Systematic Molecular Phenotyping: A Path Toward Precision Emergency Medicine?

Precision medicine is an emerging approach to disease treatment and prevention that considers variability in patient genes, environment, and lifestyle. However, little has been written about how such research impacts emergency care. Recent advances in analytical techniques have made it possible to characterize patients in a more comprehensive and sophisticated fashion at the molecular level, promising highly individualized diagnosis and treatment. Among these techniques are various systematic molecular phenotyping analyses (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics). Although a number of emergency physicians use such techniques in their research, widespread discussion of these approaches has been lacking in the emergency care literature and many emergency physicians may be unfamiliar with them. In this article, we briefly review the underpinnings of such studies, note how they already impact acute care, discuss areas in which they might soon be applied, and identify challenges in translation to the emergency department (ED). While such techniques hold much promise, it is unclear whether the obstacles to translating their findings to the ED will be overcome in the near future. Such obstacles include validation, cost, turnaround time, user interface, decision support, standardization, and adoption by end-users.

Analysis of traumatic injuries presenting to a referral hospital emergency department in Moshi, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent a significant and growing public health concern in the developing world, yet their impact on patients and the emergency health-care system in the countries of East Africa has received limited attention. This study evaluates the magnitude and scope of injury related disorders in the population presenting to a referral hospital emergency department in northern Tanzania. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the emergency department at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre was performed. A standardized data collection form was used for data abstraction from the emergency department logbook and the complete medical record for all injured patients. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, location, type and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Ten thousand six hundred twenty-two patients presented to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment during the 7-month study period. One thousand two hundred twenty-four patients (11.5%) had injuries. Males and individuals aged 15 to 44 years were most frequently injured, representing 73.4% and 57.8%, respectively. Road traffic injuries were the most common mechanism of injury, representing 43.9% of injuries. Head injuries (36.5%) and extremity injuries (59.5%) were the most common location of injury. The majority of injured patients, 59.3%, were admitted from the emergency department to the hospital wards, and 5.6%, required admission to an intensive care unit. Death occurred in 5.4% of injured patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data give a detailed and more robust picture of the patient demographics, mechanisms of injury, types of injury and patient outcomes from similar resource-limited settings.

Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions

Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients' opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a 'guinea pig' and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.

A strategy to advance the evidence base in palliative medicine: formation of a palliative care research cooperative group.

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine has made rapid progress in establishing its scientific and clinical legitimacy, yet the evidence base to support clinical practice remains deficient in both the quantity and quality of published studies. Historically, the conduct of research in palliative care populations has been impeded by multiple barriers including health care system fragmentation, small number and size of potential sites for recruitment, vulnerability of the population, perceptions of inappropriateness, ethical concerns, and gate-keeping. METHODS: A group of experienced investigators with backgrounds in palliative care research convened to consider developing a research cooperative group as a mechanism for generating high-quality evidence on prioritized, clinically relevant topics in palliative care. RESULTS: The resulting Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) agreed on a set of core principles: active, interdisciplinary membership; commitment to shared research purposes; heterogeneity of participating sites; development of research capacity in participating sites; standardization of methodologies, such as consenting and data collection/management; agile response to research requests from government, industry, and investigators; focus on translation; education and training of future palliative care researchers; actionable results that can inform clinical practice and policy. Consensus was achieved on a first collaborative study, a randomized clinical trial of statin discontinuation versus continuation in patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months who are taking statins for primary or secondary prevention. This article describes the formation of the PCRC, highlighting processes and decisions taken to optimize the cooperative group's success.

The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research.

BACKGROUND: Patients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility. METHODS: To address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org ) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches. RESULTS: This paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years. CONCLUSIONS: The IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.