Search

The ultimate goal of value-based laboratory medicine is maximizing the effectiveness of laboratory tests in improving patient outcomes, optimizing resources and minimizing unnecessary costs. This approach abandons the oversimplified notion of test volume and cost, in favor of emphasizing the clinical utility and quality of diagnostic tests in the clinical decision-making. Several key elements characterize value-based laboratory medicine, which can be summarized in some basic concepts, such as organization of in vitro diagnostics (including appropriateness, integrated diagnostics, networking, remote patient monitoring, disruptive innovations), translation of laboratory data into clinical information and measurable outcomes, sustainability, reimbursement, ethics (e.g., patient empowerment and safety, data protection, analysis of big data, scientific publishing). Education and training are also crucial, along with considerations for the future of the profession, which will be largely influenced by advances in automation, information technology, artificial intelligence, and regulations concerning in vitro diagnostics. This collective opinion paper, composed of summaries from presentations given at the two-day European Federation of Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Strategic Conference "A vision to the future: value-based laboratory medicine" (Padova, Italy; September 23–24, 2024), aims to provide a comprehensive overview of value-based laboratory medicine, projecting the profession into a more clinically effective and sustainable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in technology have transformed healthcare and laboratory medicine. Biosensors have emerged as a promising technology in healthcare, providing a way to monitor human physiological parameters in a continuous, real-time, and non-intrusive manner and offering value and benefits in a wide range of applications. This position statement aims to present the current situation around biosensors, their perspectives and importantly the need to set the framework for their validation and safe use. The development of a qualification framework for biosensors should be conceptually adopted and extended to cover digitally measured biomarkers from biosensors for advancing healthcare and achieving more individualized patient management and better patient outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Los intervalos de referencia son habitualmente empleados como herramienta de apoyo a las decisiones clínicas. En esta revisión se resumen los aspectos relacionados con el big data y los intervalos de referencia, las prácticas actuales, incluyendo los métodos estadísticos, los requisitos de calidad de los datos, incluyendo la armonización y la normalización, y las perspectivas de futuro para la determinación indirecta de intervalos de referencia mediante datos de laboratorio de rutina.

Reference intervals are commonly used as a decision-making tool. In this review, we provide an overview on “big data” and reference intervals, describing the rationale, current practices including statistical methods, essential prerequisites concerning data quality, including harmonization and standardization, and future perspectives of the indirect determination of reference intervals using routine laboratory data.

In persons with dyslipidemia, a high residual risk of cardiovascular disease remains despite lipid lowering therapy. Current cardiovascular risk prediction mainly focuses on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels, neglecting other contributing risk factors. Moreover, the efficacy of LDL-c lowering by statins resulting in reduced cardiovascular risk is only partially effective. Secondly, from a metrological viewpoint LDL-c falls short as a reliable measurand. Both direct and calculated LDL-c tests produce inaccurate test results at the low end under aggressive lipid lowering therapy. As LDL-c tests underperform both clinically and metrologically, there is an urging need for molecularly defined biomarkers. Over the years, apolipoproteins have emerged as promising biomarkers in the context of cardiovascular disease as they are the functional workhorses in lipid metabolism. Among these, apolipoprotein B (ApoB), present on all atherogenic lipoprotein particles, has demonstrated to clinically outperform LDL-c. Other apolipoproteins, such as Apo(a) - the characteristic apolipoprotein of the emerging risk factor lipoprotein(a) -, and ApoC-III - an inhibitor of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein clearance -, have attracted attention as well. To support personalized medicine, we need to move to molecularly defined risk markers, like the apolipoproteins. Molecularly defined diagnosis and molecularly targeted therapy require molecularly measured biomarkers. This review provides a summary of the scientific validity and (patho)physiological role of nine serum apolipoproteins, Apo(a), ApoB, ApoC-I, ApoC-II, ApoC-III, ApoE and its phenotypes, ApoA-I, ApoA-II, and ApoA-IV, in lipid metabolism, their association with cardiovascular disease, and their potential as cardiovascular risk markers when measured in a multiplex apolipoprotein panel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade a remarkable rebirth of serum/plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurred. Updated evidence for a causal continuous association in different ethnic groups between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes has been published in the latest European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lp(a) consensus statement. Interest in measuring Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime moreover originates from the development of promising new Lp(a) lowering drugs. Accurate and clinically effective Lp(a) tests are of key importance for the timely detection of high-risk individuals and for future evaluation of the therapeutic effects of Lp(a) lowering medication. To this end, it is necessary to improve the performance and standardization of existing Lp(a) tests, as is also noted in the Lp(a) consensus statement. Consequently, a state-of-the-art internationally endorsed reference measurement system (RMS) must be in place that allows for performance evaluation of Lp(a) field tests in order to certify their validity and accuracy. An ELISA-based RMS from Northwest Lipid Research Laboratory (University of Washington, Seattle, USA) has been available since the 1990s. A next-generation apo(a)/Lp(a) RMS is now being developed by a working group from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The envisioned apo(a) RMS is based on the direct measurement of selected proteotypic fragments generated after proteolytic digestion using quantitative protein mass spectrometry (MS). The choice for an MS-based RMS enables selective measurement of the proteotypic peptides and is by design apo(a) isoform insensitive. Clearly, the equimolar conversion of apo(a) into the surrogate peptide measurands is required to obtain accurate Lp(a) results. The completeness of proteolysis under reaction conditions from the candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) has been demonstrated for the quantifying apo(a) peptides. Currently, the candidate apo(a) RMP is endorsed by the IFCC and recommendations for suitable secondary reference materials have been made in a recent commutability study paper. Ongoing efforts toward a complete apo(a) RMS that is listed by the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) are focused on the peptide-based calibration and the establishment of a network of calibration laboratories running the apo(a) RMS in a harmonized way. Once completed, it will be the holy grail for evaluation and certification of Lp(a) field methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The letter discusses the guidelines released by the European Commission Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) on the interpretation and implementation of the EU Regulation 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR). The authors express concerns about the potential negative effects of these guidelines on laboratory services and argue that ISO 15189 is sufficient for the implementation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) under the IVDR. They also highlight the importance of risk management and the need for a balanced approach to safety. The authors suggest that an abundance of quality assurance measures may have unintended consequences for patient care and the investment of laboratories involved in translational research. [Extracted from the article]

Background Pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), cognitive impairment, and the high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) complicate the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in older women. The presence of pyuria remains the cornerstone of UTI diagnosis. However, >90% of ASB patients have pyuria, prompting unnecessary treatment. We quantified pyuria by automated microscopy and flowcytometry to determine the diagnostic accuracy for UTI and to derive pyuria thresholds for UTI in older women. Methods Women ≥65 years with ≥2 new-onset LUTS and 1 uropathogen ≥104 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL were included in the UTI group. Controls were asymptomatic and classified as ASB (1 uropathogen ≥105 CFU/mL), negative culture, or mixed flora. Patients with an indwelling catheter or antimicrobial pretreatment were excluded. Leukocyte medians were compared and sensitivity–specificity pairs were derived from a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results We included 164 participants. UTI patients had higher median urinary leukocytes compared with control patients (microscopy: 900 vs 26 leukocytes/µL; flowcytometry: 1575 vs 23 leukocytes/µL; P <.001). Area under the curve was 0.93 for both methods. At a cutoff of 264 leukocytes/µL, sensitivity and specificity of microscopy were 88% (positive and negative likelihood ratio: 7.2 and 0.1, respectively). The commonly used cutoff of 10 leukocytes/µL had a poor specificity (36%) and a sensitivity of 100%. Conclusions The degree of pyuria can help to distinguish UTI in older women from ASB and asymptomatic controls with pyuria. Current pyuria cutoffs are too low and promote inappropriate UTI diagnosis in older women. Clinical Trials Registration. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: NL9477 (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9477) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical implication of reporting I so-called i LDLc, confounded by cholesterol contributions from other lipoproteins, is causing imprecision medicine with misclassifications and flawed conclusions on the therapeutic efficacy of lipid lowering drugs. Laboratory specialists in medical labs are accountable for state-of-the-art test menus composed of safe and clinically effective medical tests that are fit-for-clinical-purpose and bring along a favourable benefit/harm ratio for patient management and outcome. Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM. [Extracted from the article]

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]