Search

In this study, we investigated the role of glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) polymorphisms in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We genotyped the GSTP1 polymorphisms in exon 5 (A313G) and exon 6 (C341T) by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) in 56 Croatian patients with AD and 231 controls. Distributions and frequencies of GSTP1 genetic variants were not statistically different between AD patients and healthy controls. Higher frequencies of the mutant genotypes were observed in AD patients (13% for both A313G and C341T) when compared with control subjects (7% for A313G and 8% for C341T), but association of GSTP1 GG (OR 2.057, 95% CI 0.796–5.315, p=0.094) and TT (OR 1.691, 95% CI 0.66– 4.270, p= 0.514) genotypes with an increased risk of AD was not confirmed by statistical analysis. The frequencies of GSTP1 alleles (A, B, C, D) did not significantly differ between AD patients and controls and they were indicated as follows: 52.7%, 15.2%, 12.5% and 19.6% for AD cases and 58.4%, 14.1%, 14.1% and 13.4% for controls. The estimation of the GSTP1 haplotype distribution showed that GSTP1*A/GSTP1*B and GSTP1*A/GSTP1*C haplotypes were less frequent, while GSTP1*B/GSTP1*B and GSTP1*C/GSTP1*D haplotypes were more frequent in AD patients than in controls. In conclusion, the involvement of GSTP1 alleles in individual susceptibility to AD was not confirmed as statistically significant in the tested Croatian Caucasian population. A possible role of GSTP1 in the complex etiopathogenesis of AD is further discussed, based on observed differences in haplotype distribution and higher frequencies of mutant genotypes in AD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autoverification increases the efficiency of laboratories. Laboratories accredited according to ISO 15189:2022 need to validate their processes, including autoverification, and assess the associated risks to patient safety. The aim of this study was to propose a systematic verification algorithm for autoverification and to assess its potential risks.The study was conducted using retrospective data from the Laboratory Information System (LIS). Seven laboratory medicine specialists participated. Autoverification rules were defined for analytes in serum, stool, urine and whole blood determined on Alinity ci (Abbott), Atellica 1500 (Siemens) and ABL90 FLEX (Radiometer). Criteria included internal quality control results, instrument flags, hemolysis/icteria/lipemia indices, median patient values, critical values, measurement ranges, delta checks, and reference values. Verification was performed step by step. Risk analysis was performed using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated.During the study, 23,633 laboratory reports were generated, containing 246,579 test results for 167 biochemical tests. Of these, 198,879 (80.66 %) met the criteria for autoverification. For 2,057 results (0.83 %), the experts disagreed with the autoverification criteria (false negatives). Discrepancies were mainly associated to median and delta check values. Only 45 false positives (0.02 %) were identified, resulting in an RPN of 0 for all cases.The autoverified and non-autoverified results showed high agreement with the expert opinions, with minimal disagreement (0.02 % and 0.83 %, respectively). The risk analysis showed that autoverification did not pose a significant risk to patient safety. This study, the first of its kind, provides step-by-step recommendations for implementing autoverification in laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]