Browsing by Author "Simms, Justin"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    An Investigation of 53BP1 in Multiple Myeloma
    (2017) Simms, Justin; Bahlis, Nizar; Goodarzi, Aaron; Lees-Miller, Susan
    Currently, multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological malignancy, and as of yet it remains incurable. Although many therapeutic advances have been made in the recent past, there is still room for improvement in the treatment of myeloma. Here, using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, we show that a therapeutic combination of proteasome inhibition in combination with PARP inhibition that is in clinical trials depends on the DNA damage response protein 53BP1. These findings contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms behind potential resistance to the combination of proteasome inhibitors with PAPR inhibitors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices
    (2019-05-02) Blanchard, Ian E; Kozicky, Ryan; Dalgarno, Dana; Simms, Justin; Goulder, Stacy; Williamson, Tyler S; Biesbroek, Susan; Page, Lenore; Leaman, Karen; Snozyk, Suzanne; Redman, Lyle; Spackman, Keith; Doig, Christopher J; Lang, Eddy S; Lazarenko, Gerald
    Abstract Background Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community. Methods In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing. Results Of 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063). Conclusions CP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.