Search

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]

Quantitative protein mass-spectrometry (QPMS) in blood depends on tryptic digestion of proteins and subsequent measurement of representing peptides. Whether serum and plasma can be used interchangeably and whether in-vitro anticoagulants affect the recovery is unknown. In our laboratory serum samples are the preferred matrix for QPMS measurement of multiple apolipoproteins. In this study, we investigated the effect of different matrices on apolipoprotein quantification by mass spectrometry. Blood samples were collected from 44 healthy donors in Beckton Dickinson blood tubes simultaneously for serum (with/without gel) and plasma (heparin, citrate or EDTA). Nine apolipoproteins were quantified according to standard operating procedure using value-assigned native serum calibrators for quantitation. Tryptic digestion kinetics were investigated in the different matrices by following formation of peptides for each apolipoprotein in time, up to 22 h. In citrate plasma recovery of apolipoproteins showed an overall reduction with a bias of −14.6%. For heparin plasma only −0.3% bias was found compared to serum, whereas for EDTA-plasma reduction was more pronounced (−5.3% bias) and variable with >14% reduction for peptides of apoA-I, A-II and C-III. Digestion kinetics revealed that especially slow forming peptides showed reduced formation in EDTA-plasma. Plasma anticoagulants affect QPMS test results. Heparin plasma showed comparable results to serum. Reduced concentrations in citrate plasma can be explained by dilution, whereas reduced recovery in EDTA-plasma is dependent on altered proteolytic digestion efficiency. The results highlight the importance of a standardized pre-analytical phase for accurate QPMS applications in clinical chemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: External quality assessment (EQA) programs for general chemistry tests have evolved from between laboratory comparison programs to trueness verification surveys. In the Netherlands, the implementation of such programs has reduced inter-laboratory variation for electrolytes, substrates and enzymes. This allows for national and metrological traceable reference intervals, but these are still lacking. We have initiated a national endeavor named NUMBER (Nederlandse UniforMe Beslisgrenzen En Referentie-intervallen) to set up a sustainable system for the determination of standardized reference intervals in the Netherlands. Methods: We used an evidence-based 'big-data' approach to deduce reference intervals using millions of test results from patients visiting general practitioners from clinical laboratory databases. We selected 21 medical tests which are either traceable to SI or have Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference materials and/or reference methods. Per laboratory, per test, outliers were excluded, data were transformed to a normal distribution (if necessary), and means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated. Then, average means and SDs per test were calculated to generate pooled (mean±2 SD) reference intervals. Results were discussed in expert meetings. Results: Sixteen carefully selected clinical laboratories across the country provided anonymous test results (n=7,574,327). During three expert meetings, participants found consensus about calculated reference intervals for 18 tests and necessary partitioning in subcategories, based on sex, age, matrix and/or method. For two tests further evaluation of the reference interval and the study population were considered necessary. For glucose, the working group advised to adopt the clinical decision limit. Conclusions: Using a 'big-data' approach we were able to determine traceable reference intervals for 18 general chemistry tests. Nationwide implementation of these established reference intervals has the potential to improve unequivocal interpretation of test results, thereby reducing patient harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To provide its participants with an external quality assessment system (EQAS) that can be used to check trueness, the Dutch EQAS organizer, Organization for Quality Assessment of Laboratory Diagnostics (SKML), has innovated its general chemistry scheme over the last decade by introducing fresh frozen commutable samples whose values were assigned by Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference laboratories using reference methods where possible. Here we present some important innovations in our feedback reports that allow participants to judge whether their trueness and imprecision meet predefined analytical performance specifications. Methods: Sigma metrics are used to calculate performance indicators named 'sigma values'. Tolerance intervals are based on both Total Error allowable (TEa) according to biological variation data and state of the art (SA) in line with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Milan consensus. Results: The existing SKML feedback reports that express trueness as the agreement between the regression line through the results of the last 12 months and the values obtained from reference laboratories and calculate imprecision from the residuals of the regression line are now enriched with sigma values calculated from the degree to which the combination of trueness and imprecision are within tolerance limits. The information and its conclusion to a simple two-point scoring system are also graphically represented in addition to the existing difference plot. Conclusions: By adding sigma metrics-based performance evaluation in relation to both TEa and SA tolerance intervals to its EQAS schemes, SKML provides its participants with a powerful and actionable check on accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine proposed a simplified hierarchy for setting analytical performance specifications (APS). The top two levels of the 1999 Stockholm hierarchy, i.e., evaluation of the effect of analytical performance on clinical outcomes and clinical decisions have been proposed to be replaced by one outcome-based model. This model can be supported by: (1a) direct outcome studies; and (1b) indirect outcome studies investigating the impact of analytical performance of the test on clinical classifications or decisions and thereby on the probability of patient relevant clinical outcomes. This paper reviews the need for outcome-based specifications, the most relevant types of outcomes to be considered, and the challenges and limitations faced when setting outcome-based APS. The methods of Model 1a and b are discussed and examples are provided for how outcome data can be translated to APS using the linked evidence and simulation or decision analytic techniques. Outcome-based APS should primarily reflect the clinical needs of patients; should be tailored to the purpose, role and significance of the test in a well defined clinical pathway; and should be defined at a level that achieves net health benefit for patients at reasonable costs. Whilst it is acknowledged that direct evaluations are difficult and may not be possible for all measurands, all other forms of setting APS should be weighed against that standard, and regarded as approximations. Better definition of the relationship between the analytical performance of tests and health outcomes can be used to set analytical performance criteria that aim to improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of laboratory tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) directive requires traceability to reference methods and materials of analytes. It is a task of the profession to verify the trueness of results and IVD compatibility. Methods: The results of a trueness verification study by the European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry (EC4) working group on creatinine standardization are described, in which 189 European laboratories analyzed serum creatinine in a commutable serum-based material, using analytical systems from seven companies. Values were targeted using isotope dilution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Results were tested on their compliance to a set of three criteria: trueness, i.e., no significant bias relative to the target value, between-laboratory variation and within-laboratory variation relative to the maximum allowable error. Results: For the lower and intermediate level, values differed significantly from the target value in the Jaffe and the dry chemistry methods. At the high level, dry chemistry yielded higher results. Between-laboratory coefficients of variation ranged from 4.37% to 8.74%. Total error budget was mainly consumed by the bias. Non-compensated Jaffe methods largely exceeded the total error budget. Best results were obtained for the enzymatic method. The dry chemistry method consumed a large part of its error budget due to calibration bias. Conclusions: Despite the European IVD directive and the growing needs for creatinine standardization, an unacceptable inter-laboratory variation was observed, which was mainly due to calibration differences. The calibration variation has major clinical consequences, in particular in pediatrics, where reference ranges for serum and plasma creatinine are low, and in the estimation of glomerular filtration rate. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1319–25. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Consolidation of analyzers is an emerging issue in clinical chemistry. We evaluated the analytical performance of the Cobas 6000 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics), which is considered a candidate for replacement of current Hitachi 917 analyzers and for consolidation of chemistry and immunochemistry. Methods: The precision, accuracy, linearity and correlation with current field methods were evaluated according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute protocols EP5, EP9 and EP10. A total of 31 routine chemistry assays and 18 immunoassays were studied. Accuracy and linearity were verified for 24 chemistry parameters using value-assigned trueness controls from the Dutch External Quality Assessment Scheme organizers. In addition, traceability to methods endorsed by the Joint Committee of Traceability in Laboratory Medicine was examined. Results: All analytes met allowable precision criteria, apart from the low level for sodium and folate. Total coefficients of variation ranged between 0.6% and 4.4% for routine chemistry and between 0.8% and 5.8% for immunochemistry, apart from folate (12% at the low end). The correlation coefficients for comparison to current field methods were >0.975, except for magnesium and for six out of 18 immunochemistries. Recovery experiments indicated high recovery for most of the 24 routine chemistry assays. Conclusions: Considering the excellent precision data and the result equivalence for most assays, it can be concluded that Cobas 6000 accommodates robust chemistry and immunochemistry, and has good potential for workstation consolidation in medium-sized laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:863–71. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative protein mass spectrometry (MS) is ideally suited for precision diagnostics and for reference standardization of protein analytes. At the Leiden Apolipoprotein Reference Laboratory we apply MS strategies to obtain detailed insight into the protein-to-peptide conversion in order to verify that quantifier peptides are not partly concealed in miscleaved protein backbone.Apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) was digested in a non-optimal manner to enhance the number of miscleaved peptides that were identified by high resolution liquid chromatography tandem-MS measurements. The protein-to-peptide conversion was carefully mapped with specific attention for miscleaved peptides that contain an apo(a) quantifier peptide. Four different isotopologues of each apo(a)-quantifier peptide were applied to evaluate linearity of internal peptide standards during measurement of specific real-life samples.Two apo(a) quantifier peptides that were concealed in two different miscleaved peptides were included into a multiple reaction monitoring list in our targeted MS-based apo(a) quantifications to alert for potential protein digestion discrepancies. The presence of miscleaved peptides could be ruled out when applying our candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) for apo(a) quantification.These data further corroborate the validity of our apo(a) candidate RMP as higher order method for certification of commercial Lp(a) tests that is endorsed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. MS-based molecular detection and quantification of heterogeneous apo(a) proteoforms will allow manufacturers’ transitioning from confounded lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] mass levels into accurate molar apo(a) levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we have followed up on previous liquid chromatography (LC) multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry (MS) approaches for measurement of apolipoprotein (apo) A-I and apo B100 in serum aiming for implementation of a multiplexed assay in a clinical chemistry laboratory with full metrological traceability. Signature peptides were selected and detected by dynamic MRM, and stable isotope labeled (SIL)-peptides were used as internal standards. Five apo A-I and four apo B100 peptides were measured in serum digests with linearity (R 2 > 0.992) in the physiologically relevant concentration ranges. Linearity with regard to protein concentration was ascertained at five concentration levels (R 2 > 0.926 and R 2 > 0.965, for the apo A-I and apo B100 peptides, respectively). Three native value-assigned sera were used as external calibrators for further method verification. Imprecision values on sample preparation and LC-MS/MS acquisition were below the established minimal specifications for apo A-I and apo B100 (5.0% and 5.3%, respectively). Correlation of LC-MS/MS results with immunoturbidimetric assay results, for normo- and hypertriglyceridemic samples, showed R 2 > 0.944 for apo A-I and R 2 > 0.964 for apo B100. This LC-MS/MS method has potential for clinical application in normo- and dyslipidemic patients. Biological significance Measurement of apo A-I and apo B100 may offer an alternative to high and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c and LDL-c) methods for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in dyslipidemic patients [1]. An LC-MS/MS method for apo A-I and apo B100 has the advantage of antibody independent and specific detection of protein signature peptides. The introduction of an LC-MS/MS method for apo A-I and apo B100 can serve as an example for many existing and newly developed (multiplex) biomarker methods in quantitative clinical chemistry proteomics (qCCP). Such LC-MS/MS methods should meet basic clinical chemistry principles with regard to test evaluation [2] . Criteria for imprecision should be pre-defined, e.g., based on biological variation. The use of commutable and traceable serum-based calibrators will improve inter-laboratory reproducibility of LC-MS/MS methods and may contribute to a more rapid transition of biomarker discovery to clinical utility with benefit for the patient treatment and improvement of general health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Regulators and healthcare payers are increasingly demanding evidence that biomarkers deliver patient benefits to justify their use in clinical practice. Laboratory professionals need to be familiar with these evidence requirements to better engage in biomarker research and decisions about their appropriate use. This paper by a multidisciplinary group of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine describes the pathway of a laboratory assay measuring a biomarker to becoming a medically useful test. We define the key terms, principles and components of the test evaluation process. Unlike previously described linearly staged models, we illustrate how the essential components of analytical and clinical performances, clinical and cost-effectiveness and the broader impact of testing assemble in a dynamic cycle. We highlight the importance of defining clinical goals and how the intended application of the biomarker in the clinical pathway should drive each component of test evaluation. This approach emphasizes the interaction of the different components, and that clinical effectiveness data should be fed back to refine analytical and clinical performances to achieve improved outcomes. The framework aims to support the understanding of key stakeholders. The laboratory profession needs to strengthen collaboration with industry and experts in evidence-based medicine, regulatory bodies and policy makers for better decisions about the use of new and existing medical tests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]