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]

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 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]

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biomarker discovery studies often claim 'promising' findings, motivating further studies and marketing as medical tests. Unfortunately, the patient benefits promised are often inadequately explained to guide further evaluation, and few biomarkers have translated to improved patient care. We present a practical guide for setting minimum clinical performance specifications to strengthen clinical performance study design and interpretation. Methods: We developed a step-by-step approach using test evaluation and decision-analytic frameworks and present with illustrative examples. Results: We define clinical performance specifications as a set of criteria that quantify the clinical performance a new test must attain to allow better health outcomes than current practice. We classify the proposed patient benefits of a new test into three broad groups and describe how to set minimum clinical performance at the level where the potential harm of false-positive and false-negative results does not outweigh the benefits. (1) For add-on tests proposed to improve disease outcomes by improving detection, define an acceptable trade-off for false-positive versus true-positive results; (2) for triage tests proposed to reduce unnecessary tests and treatment by ruling out disease, define an acceptable risk of false-negatives as a safety threshold; (3) for replacement tests proposed to provide other benefits, or reduce costs, without compromising accuracy, use existing tests to benchmark minimum accuracy levels. Conclusions: Researchers can follow these guidelines to focus their study objectives and to define statistical hypotheses and sample size requirements. This way, clinical performance studies will allow conclusions about whether test performance is sufficient for intended use. [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]

In our efforts to advance the profession and practice of clinical laboratory medicine, strong coordination and collaboration are needed more than ever before. At the dawn of the 21st century, medical laboratories are facing many unmet clinical needs, a technological revolution promising a plethora of better biomarkers, financial constraints, a growing scarcity of well-trained laboratory technicians and a sharply increasing number of International Organization for Standardization guidelines and new regulations to which medical laboratories should comply in order to guarantee safety and effectiveness of medical test results. Although this is a global trend, medical laboratories across continents and countries are in distinct phases and experience various situations. A universal underlying requirement for safe and global use of medical test results is the standardization and harmonization of test results. Since two decades and after a number of endeavors on standardization/harmonization of medical tests, it is time to reflect on the effectiveness of the approaches used. To keep laboratory medicine sustainable, viable and affordable, clarification of the promises of metrological traceability of test results for improving sick and health care, realization of formal commitment among all stakeholders of the metrological traceability chain and preparation of a joint and global plan for action are essential prerequisites. Policy makers and regulators should not only overwhelm the diagnostic sector with oversight and regulations but should also create the conditions by establishing a global professional forum for anchoring the metrological traceability concept in the medical test domain. Even so, professional societies should have a strong voice in their (inter-) national governments to negotiate long-lasting public policy commitment and funds for global standardization of medical tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article tries to reply to the following three questions: Are External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS) really fit for purpose? Are all schemes equivalent and sufficiently harmonized? Is the role of EQAS similar and necessary in all branches of laboratory medicine? Although the reply to the first two questions is, unfortunately, negative for several reasons (lack of commutable material with reference method values, EQAS with different scopes, etc.), the reply to the third one is positive: EQAS are a necessary source of information on trueness and accuracy and must be fully developed for all the branches of the clinical laboratory. [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]

The author discusses the need of the holistic approach and standardization education in laboratory medicine. The author cites that laboratory medicine has an important impact on the outcome of the patient. The author also cites on the perception of patients and physicians on the diagnostic laboratories deliver accurate test results to deliver diagnosis and treatment to patients.

Background: Equivalent results between different laboratories enable optimal patient care and can be achieved with harmonisation. We report on EQA-initiated national harmonisation of seven enzymes using commutable samples. Methods: EQA samples were prepared from human serum spiked with human recombinant enzymes. Target values were assigned with the IFCC Reference Measurement Procedures. The same samples were included at four occasions in the EQA programmes of 2012 and 2013. Laboratories were encouraged to report IFCC traceable results. A parallel study was done to confirm commutability of the samples. Results: Of the 223 participating laboratories, 95% reported IFCC traceable results, ranging from 98% (ASAT) to 87% (amylase). Users of Roche and Siemens (97%) more frequently reported in IFCC traceable results than users of Abbott (91%), Beckman (90%), and Olympus (87%). The success of harmonisation, expressed as the recovery of assigned values and the inter-laboratory CV was: ALAT (recovery 100%; inter-lab CV 4%), ASAT (102%; 4%), LD (98%; 3%), CK (101%; 5%), GGT (98%; 4%), AP (96%; 6%), amylase (99%; 4%). There were no significant differences between the manufacturers. Commutability was demonstrated in the parallel study. Equal results in the same sample in the 2012 and 2013 EQA programmes demonstrated stability of the samples. Conclusions: The EQA-initiated national harmonisation of seven enzymes, using stable, commutable human serum samples, spiked with human recombinant enzymes, and targeted with the IFCC Reference Measurement Procedures, was successful in terms of implementation of IFCC traceable results (95%), recovery of the target (99%), and inter-laboratory CV (4%). [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]