Search

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly being used in healthcare, including hospitals, and POCT-style tests are also used within some laboratories. The principles of biosafety, including risk assessment and containment of biohazardous agents, can be utilized as a foundation to establish policies and procedures guiding safe performance of POCT. However, specific biosafety guidelines for POCT are generally lacking, particularly for those performed outside laboratories by healthcare workers. This study aims to explore POCT biosafety program decision-making infrastructure and oversight in Ontario., Content: The Institute of Quality Management in Healthcare distributed a survey to 249 laboratories in Ontario. There were 11 questions on POCT biosafety practices., Summary: The survey had a high response rate of 88.7%. How POCT biosafety decisions were made was variable among respondents. For POCT-style tests conducted within laboratories, the biosafety officer (BSO) and/or the microbiologist were involved in biosafety decisions in 95% of microbiology labs or 55% of other labs. Only 27% of the respondents reported that biosafety decisions were made by BSOs and/or microbiologists when POCT was conducted outside the laboratory. When POCT is performed outside the laboratory, biosafety decisions were made largely by Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) and POCT laboratory staff. Similarly, training and auditing of staff who perform POCT were mainly done by IPAC and POCT laboratory staff. The survey showed that a wide variety of POCT was being conducted for COVID-19 patients during the pandemic., (© Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine 2024.)

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems provide frequent glucose measurements in interstitial fluid and have been used widely in ambulatory settings for diabetes management. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, regulators in the U.S. and Canada temporarily allowed for CGM systems to be used in hospitals with the aim of reducing health care professional COVID-19 exposure and limiting use of personal protective equipment. As such, studies on hospital CGM system use have been possible. With improved sensor accuracy, there is increased interest in CGM usage for diabetes management in hospitals. Laboratorians and health care professionals must determine how to integrate CGM usage into practice. The aim of this consensus guidance document is to provide an update on the application of CGM systems in hospital, with insights and opinions from laboratory medicine, endocrinology, and nursing., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Competing Interests: All authors: All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed. J. Shaw and M. Knauer have received in-kind POCT devices and reagents from Roche Diagnostics for research studies.

Background: Primary aldosteronism, characterized by overt renin-independent aldosterone production, is a common but underrecognized form of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Growing evidence suggests that milder and subclinical forms of primary aldosteronism are highly prevalent, yet their contribution to cardiovascular disease is not well characterized., Methods: This prospective study included 1284 participants between the ages of 40 and 69 years from the randomly sampled population-based CARTaGENE cohort (Québec, Canada). Regression models were used to analyze associations of aldosterone, renin, and the aldosterone-to-renin ratio with the following measures of cardiovascular health: arterial stiffness, assessed by central blood pressure (BP) and pulse wave velocity; adverse cardiac remodeling, captured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, including indexed maximum left atrial volume, left ventricular mass index, left ventricular remodeling index, and left ventricular hypertrophy; and incident hypertension., Results: The mean (SD) age of participants was 54 (8) years and 51% were men. The mean (SD) systolic and diastolic BP were 123 (15) and 72 (10) mm Hg, respectively. At baseline, 736 participants (57%) had normal BP and 548 (43%) had hypertension. Higher aldosterone-to-renin ratio, indicative of renin-independent aldosteronism (ie, subclinical primary aldosteronism), was associated with increased arterial stiffness, including increased central BP and pulse wave velocity, along with adverse cardiac remodeling, including increased indexed maximum left atrial volume, left ventricular mass index, and left ventricular remodeling index (all P <0.05). Higher aldosterone-to-renin ratio was also associated with higher odds of left ventricular hypertrophy (odds ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.002-1.73]) and higher odds of developing incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.03-1.62]). All the associations were consistent when assessing participants with normal BP in isolation and were independent of brachial BP., Conclusions: Independent of brachial BP, a biochemical phenotype of subclinical primary aldosteronism is negatively associated with cardiovascular health, including greater arterial stiffness, adverse cardiac remodeling, and incident hypertension., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Vaidya reports consulting fees from Mineralys, Corcept, and HRA Pharma, outside of the submitted work. Dr Brown reports consulting fees from Bayer and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. Dr Sood reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Otsuka, Bayer, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside of the submitted work.

Background: Point-of-care tests (POCT) for haemoglobin are increasingly used to guide intraoperative transfusion. However, their accuracy compared to central laboratory tests is unknown. The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of method comparison studies assessing the accuracy of POCT versus central laboratory haemoglobin tests in patients undergoing surgery., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2020 (updated August 2023). Any methodological approach comparing haemoglobin measurements between POCT and central laboratory in patients undergoing surgery under anaesthesia in the operating room were included. Data abstraction was guided by PRISMA and risk of bias was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Outcomes included mean differences between POCT and central laboratory haemoglobin with associated standard deviations and 95% limits of agreement (LOA)., Results: Of 3057 citations, 34 studies were included (n = 2427, 6857 paired measurements). Several devices were compared (pulse co-oximetry, n = 25; HemoCue, n = 10; iSTAT, n = 6; blood gas analysers, n = 10; haematology analyser, n = 2). Median sample size was 41 patients, and 11 studies were funded by device manufacturers. Fifteen of 34 studies had low risk of bias. Pooled mean differences (95% LOA) were: pulse co-oximeters 2.3 g/l (-25.2-29.8), HemoCue -0.3 g/l (-11.1-10.5), iSTAT -0.3 g/l (-8.4-7.8) and blood gas analysers -2.6 g/l (-17.8-12.7)., Conclusion: All POCT examining intraoperative haemoglobin measurement yielded pooled mean difference LOAs larger than the allowable limit difference of ±4 g/dl. Intraoperative haemoglobin measured by POCT should not be considered interchangeable with central laboratory values and caution is necessary when using these tests to guide intraoperative transfusion., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Competing Interests: JLVS reports that Roche Diagnostics is providing metres and reagents Study planned for a 2023 study to evaluate its Cobas Pulse glucose metre. JS reports a grant from Becton, Dickinson and Company paid to Horizon Health Network for completion of project related to BD Barricor™ vacutainer. LB reports a grant received from the Public Health Agency of Canada for unrelated research and also received support in 2022 from the Canadian Diagnostic Executive Forum and the Ontario Society of Clinical Chemistry to attend/present on unrelated topics. LB also participates on the Leadership Council: Division Head, Public Outreach and Communications, Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. There are no other disclosures.

Objectives: Monitoring quality indicators (QIs) is an important part of laboratory quality assurance (QA). Here, the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) Point of Care Testing (POCT) and QI Special Interest Groups describe a process for establishing and monitoring QIs for POCT glucose testing., Methods: Key, error prone steps in the POCT glucose testing process were collaboratively mapped out, followed by risk assessment for each step. Steps with the highest risk and ability to detect a non-conformance were chosen for follow-up. These were positive patient identification (PPID) and repeat of critically high glucose measurements. Participating sites were asked to submit aggregate data for these indicators from their site(s) for a one-month period. The PPID QI was also included as part of a national QI monitoring program for which fifty-seven sites submitted data., Results: The percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID ranged from 0-87%. Sites without Admission-Discharge-Transfer (ADT) connectivity to POCT meters were among those with the highest percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID. The percentage repeated critically high glucose measurements ranged from 0-50%, indicating low compliance with this recommendation. A high rate of discordance was also noted when critically high POCT glucose measurements were repeated, demonstrating the importance of repeat testing prior to insulin administration., Conclusions: Here, a process for establishing these QIs is described, with preliminary data for two QIs chosen from this process. The findings demonstrate the importance of QIs for identification and comparative performance monitoring of non-conformances to improve POCT quality., (© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Rationale: The metabolic acidoses are generally separated into 2 categories on the basis of an anion gap calculation: high-anion-gap and normal anion-gap metabolic acidosis. When a high-anion-gap metabolic acidosis (HAGMA) is not clearly explained by common etiologies and routine confirmatory testing, specialized testing can definitively establish rare diagnoses such as 5-oxoproline, d-lactate accumulation, or diethylene glycol toxicity., Presenting Concerns of the Patient: A 56-year-old woman had a prolonged hospital admission following perforated diverticulitis requiring sigmoid resection. Her hospitalization was complicated by feculent peritonitis and surgical wound dehiscence needing prolonged broad-spectrum antibiotics and wound debridements. She developed acute kidney injury and HAGMA in the hospital., Diagnoses: Chart review showed that she received a large cumulative dose of acetaminophen during her hospital stay. Laboratory studies showed markedly increased serum 5-oxoproline causing HAGMA., Interventions Including Prevention and Lifestyle: Patient was admitted to the intensive care unit and treated with N -acetylcysteine and renal replacement therapy., Outcomes: After admission to the intensive care unit, the patient continued to require vasopressor and ventilatory support for septic shock and a ventilator-associated pneumonia. After an initial recovery and resolution of her HAGMA, she subsequently suffered recurrent aspirations which were fatal., Teaching Points: 1. The acronym GOLD MARK is useful when assessing patients with HAGMA and most causes of HAGMA can be established with routine testing.2. When the etiology of HAGMA remains unclear, additional testing can be required to diagnose rare causes of HAGMA.3. Rare causes of HAGMA are diethylene glycol, 5-oxoproline, and d-lactate accumulation.4. Acidosis secondary to 5-oxoproline accumulation can occur even with "therapeutic" doses of acetaminophen in patients receiving it regularly for a prolonged period and who have depleted glutathione stores.5. Risk factors for glutathione depletion include malnutrition, older age, sepsis, pregnancy, multiple chronic illnesses, and chronic kidney disease., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ana Cecilia Farfan Ruiz—none; Sriram Sriperumbuduri—none; Julie L V Shaw—none; Edward G Clark—Editorial Board of CJKHD. All authors declared no competing interest., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Introduction: Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been critical to support and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Point of care testing (POCT) for SARS-CoV-2 has been a widely used tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2., Areas Covered: POCT nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been the most readily used POCT for SARS-CoV-2. Here, current knowledge on the utility of POCT NAATs and RATs for SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed and discussed alongside aspects of quality assurance factors that must be considered for successful and safe implementation of POCT., Expert Opinion: Use cases for implementation of POCT must be evidence based, regardless of the test used. A quality assurance framework must be in place to ensure accuracy and safety of POCT.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis disruption can lead to hypocortisolism. This is a life-threatening but difficult to diagnose condition, due to its non-specific symptoms that overlap with symptoms of malignancy. Currently, there is no consensus on how to best screen asymptomatic patients on ICI therapy for hypophysitis with serum cortisol., Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients treated with ICI in a tertiary care centre was conducted to assess the rate of screening with cortisol and whether this had an impact on diagnosis of ICI-hypophysitis in the preclinical stage. Patients were identified as having hypophysitis with an adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH) deficiency based on chart review of patients with cortisol values ≤ 140 nmol/L (≤5 mcg/dL). We also assessed what proportion of cortisol values were drawn at the correct time for interpretation (between 6 AM and 10 AM)., Results: Two hundred and sixty-five patients had 1301 cortisol levels drawn, only 40% of which were drawn correctly (between 6 and 10 AM). Twenty-two cases of hypophysitis manifesting with ACTH deficiency were identified. Eight of these patients were being screened with cortisol following treatment and were detected in the outpatient setting. The remaining 14 patients were not screened and were diagnosed when symptomatic, after an emergency room visit or hospital admission. Sixty percent of the cortisol tests were uninterpretable as they were not drawn within the appropriate time window., Conclusion: Measuring morning serum cortisol in asymptomatic patients on ICI therapy is a fast and inexpensive way to screen for hypophysitis and should become the standard of care. Random serum cortisol measurement has no clinical value. Education needs to be provided on when to correctly perform the test and how to interpret it and we provide an algorithm for this purpose. The adoption and validation of such an algorithm as part of routine practice could significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in patients, especially as ICI therapy is becoming increasingly commonplace.

Several rapid testing methodologies have been approved for testing of symptomatic individuals but have not been validated for asymptomatic screening. We evaluated performance of the Abbott PanbioTM COVID-19 rapid antigen assay in the asymptomatic setting. We conducted a prospective study in an urban assessment center and in the context of long-term care staff screening. A total of 3014 individuals submitted paired nasopharyngeal samples, which were tested in parallel with the rapid antigen and laboratory-based, RT-PCR assays SARS-CoV-2 detection. There was 54.5% concordance in positive results between the rapid antigen assay and RT-PCR. All positive rapid antigen assay results were confirmed by RT-PCR. The negative predictive value of the rapid antigen assay minimally improved on the negative pre-test probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Abbott PanbioTM COVID-19 rapid antigen test allowed for faster identification of infected individuals but cannot be used to rule-out SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. J. Shaw has served as an Advisory Board Member for Abbott, (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Point-of-care testing (POCT) refers to diagnostic testing performed outside of the central laboratory, near to the patient and often at the patient bedside. This testing is generally performed by clinical staff who are not laboratory trained and, as such, often do not appreciate the importance of quality assurance (QA) activities aimed at ensuring the quality of testing performed. Within hospital environments, it is typically the central laboratory that oversees POCT and that ensures QA practices are in-place. Audits for compliance of POCT users with policies and procedures in place are key to informing quality improvement initiatives. Here, audit and follow-up data and the results from three quality improvement initiatives are discussed. These examples demonstrate where QA audit practices led to a reduction in POCT errors and improved the quality of result interpretation., (Copyright © 2021 International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). All rights reserved.)

Objectives: A consensus guidance is provided for testing, utility and verification of SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test (POCT) performance and implementation of a quality management program, focusing on nucleic acid and antigen targeted technologies., Design and Methods: The recommendations are based on current literature and expert opinion from the members of Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC), and are intended for use inside or outside of healthcare settings that have varied levels of expertise and experience with POCT., Results and Conclusions: Here we discuss sampling requirements, biosafety, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing methodologies (with focus on Health Canada approved tests), test performance and limitations, test selection, testing utility, development and implementation of quality management systems, quality improvement, and medical and scientific oversight., (Copyright © 2021 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Point of Care Testing (POCT) refers to clinical laboratory testing performed outside the central laboratory, nearer to the patient and sometimes at the patient bedside. The testing is usually performed by clinical staff, such as physicians or nurses, who are not laboratory trained. This document was developed by the POCT Interest group of the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) as practical guidance for quality assurance practices related to POCT performed in hospital and outside hospital environments. The aspects of quality assurance addressed in this document include: (1) device selection, (2) initial device verification, (3) ongoing device verification, (4) ongoing quality assurance including reagent and quality control (QC) lot changes, and (5) quality management including operator and document management., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Point of care testing (POCT) refers to laboratory testing that occurs near to the patient, often at the patient bedside. POCT can be advantageous in situations requiring rapid turnaround time of test results for clinical decision making. There are many challenges associated with POCT, mainly related to quality assurance. POCT is performed by clinical staff rather than laboratory trained individuals which can lead to errors resulting from a lack of understanding of the importance of quality control and quality assurance practices. POCT is usually more expensive than testing performed in the central laboratory and requires a significant amount of support from the laboratory to ensure the quality testing and meet accreditation requirements. Here, specific challenges related to POCT compliance with accreditation standards are discussed along with strategies that can be used to overcome these challenges. These areas include: documentation of POCT orders, charting of POCT results as well as training and certification of individuals performing POCT. Factors to consider when implementing connectivity between POCT instruments and the electronic medical record are also discussed in detail and include: uni-directional versus bidirectional communication, linking patient demographic information with POCT software, the importance of positive patient identification and considering where to chart POCT results in the electronic medical record.