Search

Calibration 2.000 was initiated 20 years ago for standardization and harmonization of medical tests. The program also intended to evaluate adequate implementation of the In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) 98/79/EC directive, in order to ensure that medical tests are fit-for-clinical purpose. The Calibration 2.000 initiative led to ongoing verification of test standardization and harmonization in the Netherlands using commutable external quality assessment (EQA)-tools and a type 1 EQA-design, where feasible. National support was guaranteed by involving all laboratory professionals as well as laboratory technicians responsible for EQA and quality officers. A category 1 EQA-system for general chemistry analytes, harmonizers for specific analytes like hGH and IGF-1, and commutable materials for other EQA-sections have been developed and structurally introduced in the EQA-schemes. The type 1 EQA-design facilitates the dialogue between individual specialists in laboratory medicine and the IVD-industry to reduce lot-to-lot variation and to improve standardization. In such a way, Calibration 2.000 sheds light on the metrological traceability challenges that we are facing and helps the laboratory community to get the issues on the table and resolved. The need for commutable trueness verifiers and/or harmonizers for other medical tests is now seen as paramount. Much knowledge is present in the Netherlands and for general chemistry, humoral immunology and protein chemistry, a few endocrinology tests, and various therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) tests, commutable materials are available. Also the multi sample evaluation scoring system (MUSE) and the category 1 EQA-design offer many possibilities for permanent education of laboratory professionals to further improve the between and within laboratory variation and the test equivalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For the analysis of 6-thioguanine nucleotides (6-TGN) and 6-methylmercaptopurine ribonucleotides (6-MMPR), no external quality assessment scheme (EQAS) is currently available and no quality control samples can be made because of the absence of pure substances. An experimental design is tested to compare laboratory analytical results. Methods: In this EQAS, participating laboratories were asked to select patient samples from their routine analysis and exchange these with a coupled laboratory. Because of large differences in results between laboratories, all standard operating procedures were reviewed, revealing that the origin of these differences could be in the method of hydrolysis and the preparation of calibrators. To investigate the contribution of the calibrators to these differences, one participating laboratory was asked to prepare a batch of calibrators to be shipped to the participating laboratories for analysis. Results: Results for 6-TGN differed more between laboratories, compared with results for 6-MMPR. For 6-TGN and 6-MMPR 43% and 24% of the results, respectively, were out of the 80%-120% range. When correcting the results from the exchange of the patient samples with the results of the calibrators, the mean absolute difference for 6-TGN improved from 24.8% to 16.3% (p < 0.001), while the results for 6-MMPR worsened from 17.3% to 20.0% (p = 0.020). Conclusions: This first EQAS for thiopurine drugs shows that there is a difference between laboratories in the analysis of 6-TGN, and to a lesser extent in the analysis of 6-MMPR. This difference for 6-TGN can partially be explained by the use of in-house-prepared calibrators that differ among the participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]