Harmonization: the Sample, the Measurement, and the Report

Harmonization of clinical laboratory results means that results are comparable irrespective of the measurement procedure used and where or when a measurement was made. Harmonization of test results includes consideration of pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical aspects. Progress has been made in each of these aspects, but there is currently poor coordination of the effort among different professional organizations in different countries. Pre-analytical considerations include terminology for the order, instructions for preparation of the patient, collection of the samples, and handling and transportation of the samples to the laboratory. Key analytical considerations include calibration traceability to a reference system, commutability of reference materials used in a traceability scheme, and specificity of the measurement of the biomolecule of interest. International organizations addressing harmonization include the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, the World Health Organization, and the recently formed International Consortium for Harmonization of Clinical Laboratory Results (ICHCLR). The ICHCLR will provide a prioritization process for measurands and a service to coordinate global harmonization activities to avoid duplication of effort. Post-analytical considerations include nomenclature, units, significant figures, and reference intervals or decision values for results. Harmonization in all of these areas is necessary for optimal laboratory service. This review summarizes the status of harmonization in each of these areas and describes activities underway to achieve the goal of fully harmonized clinical laboratory testing.

Translation: Roadmap for Harmonization of Clinical Laboratory Measurement Procedures

Results between different clinical laboratory measurement procedures (CLMP) should be equivalent, within clinically meaningful limits, to enable optimal use of clinical guidelines for disease diagnosis and patient management. When laboratory test results are neither standardized nor harmonized, a different numeric result may be obtained for the same clinical sample. Unfortunately, some guidelines are based on test results from a specific laboratory measurement procedure without consideration of the possibility or likelihood of differences between various procedures. When this happens, aggregation of data from different clinical research investigations and development of appropriate clinical practice guidelines will be flawed. A lack of recognition that results are neither standardized nor harmonized may lead to erroneous clinical, financial, regulatory, or technical decisions. Standardization of CLMPs has been accomplished for several measurands for which primary (pure substance) reference materials exist and/or reference measurement procedures (RMPs) have been developed. However, the harmonization of clinical laboratory procedures for measurands that do not have RMPs has been problematic owing to inadequate definition of the measurand, inadequate analytical specificity for the measurand, inadequate attention to the commutability of reference materials, and lack of a systematic approach for harmonization. To address these problems, an infrastructure must be developed to enable a systematic approach for identification and prioritization of measurands to be harmonized on the basis of clinical importance and technical feasibility, and for management of the technical implementation of a harmonization process for a specific measurand.

Translation: Non-HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: Weexamined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides or =2.26 mmol/L (> or =200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.