Key result
Biomarkers show revolutionary potential for thrombotic disease management but face significant clinical implementation barriers.
Why the study?
Despite advances in thrombotic diseases, clinical adoption of translational biomarker research remains limited and several factors impede its near-patient application.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Barriers limit biomarker adoption in thrombosis despite potential; leaves open the need for translational studies to close the bench-to-bedside gap.
Arterial and venous thromboembolism are leading causes of morbidity and death worldwide. Despite significant advances in the diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment of thrombotic diseases over the past 3 decades, the adoption of findings stemming from translational biomarker research in clinical practice remains limited. Biomarkers provide an opportunity to enhance our understanding of pathophysiological processes and optimize treatment strategies. They hold the promise of revolutionizing patient care. Still, this potential remains untapped, and several factors impede their use for near‐patient applications. We sought to provide an overview of biomarker research in arterial and venous thromboembolic disease. We then aimed to discuss key barriers to the broader clinical implementation of biomarker research and highlight promising strategies to overcome them. We emphasize the merits of translational and implementation science to bridge the gaps from bench to bedside. Innovative trial design, data sharing, and collaborative efforts between academia and industry will be essential. Purposeful regression methodology using rational conceptual framework design, causal mediation analysis, and artificial intelligence might better leverage the use of observational data. Dedicated translational science training programs geared toward educating physicians on the appropriate measurement, interpretation, and integration of biomarker data in clinical practice should foster endorsement by frontline physicians. Finally, we make the case in support of a paradigm shift in cardiovascular medicine. Improved recognition of biomarker research and a greater emphasis on mechanistic evidence can better equip clinicians to deal with the uncertainty that defines the practice of thrombosis medicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaw et al. (2024) studied this question. Biomarkers have the potential to revolutionize thrombotic disease management but face significant barriers to clinical implementation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: