Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Laboratory Medicine: An IFCC C-ETPLM, SSIEM, ISNS Global Survey.

Objective: Pediatric laboratory medicine is a unique practice serving a vulnerable group of patients including highly specialized testing aiming to detect and treat inherited conditions early to avoid adverse outcomes. Data on the actual impact of COVID-19 pandemic on this speciality is lacking. Methods: A survey was conducted by the IFCC Committee on Emerging Technologies in Pediatric Laboratory Medicine in partnership with the Society for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism and International Society for Neonatal Screening, to assess the impact on the clinical service provision during the initial wave (January to July 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic and to gather experiences learned in order to improve laboratory preparedness for future outbreaks. Results: 217 survey responses were received from 69 regions. Sixty-three laboratories (29%) reported a restriction or suspension of service for a median period of four months. The common tests/ services suspended were new-born screening program, body fluids and sweat testing. The reasons for the suspension were related to bio-safety risks of COVID-19 transmission, manpower constraints and supplies disruption. A minority (9-10%) of laboratories did observe delayed/missed diagnoses or a more severe presentation of a clinical disorder. The critical operational decisions that helped manage the initial wave of COVID-19 included modifying work shift patterns, split-teams arrangement, use of personal protection equipment and social distancing. Conclusion: The provision and delivery of pediatric laboratories services were affected during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Manpower preparedness for future potential disruptions to pediatric laboratory services is a key finding and recommendation from this survey.

Setting Bias Specifications Based on Qualitative Assays With a Quantitative Cutoff Using COVID-19 as a Disease Model.

OBJECTIVES: Automated qualitative serology assays often measure quantitative signals that are compared against a manufacturer-defined cutoff for qualitative (positive/negative) interpretation. The current general practice of assessing serology assay performance by overall concordance in a qualitative manner may not detect the presence of analytical shift/drift that could affect disease classifications. METHODS: We describe an approach to defining bias specifications for qualitative serology assays that considers minimum positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs). Desirable minimum PPVs and NPVs for a given disease prevalence are projected as equi-PPV and equi-NPV lines into the receiver operator characteristic curve space of coronavirus disease 2019 serology assays, and the boundaries define the allowable area of performance (AAP). RESULTS: More stringent predictive values produce smaller AAPs. When higher NPVs are required, there is lower tolerance for negative biases. Conversely, when higher PPVs are required, there is less tolerance for positive biases. As prevalence increases, so too does the allowable positive bias, although the allowable negative bias decreases. The bias specification may be asymmetric for positive and negative direction and should be method specific. CONCLUSIONS: The described approach allows setting bias specifications in a way that considers clinical requirements for qualitative assays that measure signal intensity (eg, serology and polymerase chain reaction).

An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Responses to the early (February-July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Emerging technologies in paediatric laboratory medicine

An editorial is presented on improving paediatric healthcare including prenatal and perinatal care. Topics include public health measures resulted in remarkable improvements in childhood survival, nutrition, and general health;and focusing on the use of science and technology for detecting and measuring biomarkers for clinical care.

Setting minimum clinical performance specifications for tests based on disease prevalence and minimum acceptable positive and negative predictive values: Practical considerations applied to COVID-19 testing.

OBJECTIVES: Several guidelines for the evaluation of laboratory tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have recommended establishing an a priori definition of minimum clinical performance specifications before test selection and method evaluation. METHODS: Using positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), we constructed a spreadsheet tool for determining the minimum clinical specificity (conditional on NPV or PPV, sensitivity and prevalence) and minimum clinical sensitivity (conditional on NPV or PPV, specificity and prevalence) of tests. RESULTS: At a prevalence of 1%, there are no minimum sensitivity requirements to achieve a desired NPV of 60%-95% for a given clinical specificity above 20%. It is not possible to achieve 60-95% PPV even with 100% clinical sensitivity, except when the clinical specificity is near 100%. The opposite trend is seen in high prevalence settings (60%), where a relatively low minimum clinical sensitivity is required to achieve a desired PPV for a given clinical specificity, and a higher minimum clinical specificity is required to achieve a desired NPV for a given clinical sensitivity. DISCUSSION: The selection of laboratory tests and the testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 involves delicate trade-offs between NPV and PPV based on prevalence and clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity. Practitioners and health authorities should carefully consider the clinical scenarios under which the test result will be used and select the most appropriate testing strategy that fulfils the a priori defined clinical performance specification.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Biochemical/Hematological Monitoring of COVID-19 Patients.

Routine biochemical and hematological tests have been reported to be useful in the stratification and prognostication of pediatric and adult patients with diagnosed coronavirus disease (COVID-19), correlating with poor outcomes such as the need for mechanical ventilation or intensive care, progression to multisystem organ failure, and/or death. While these tests are already well established in most clinical laboratories, there is still debate regarding their clinical value in the management of COVID-19, particularly in pediatrics, as well as the value of composite clinical risk scores in COVID-19 prognostication. This document by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications for testing, (B) recommendations for test selection and interpretation, (C) considerations in test interpretation, and (D) current limitations of biochemical/hematological monitoring of COVID-19 patients. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide, underscoring the contribution of biochemical and hematological testing to our collective pandemic response.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Serological Testing of Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Serological testing for the detection of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as an important component of the clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as the epidemiological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure worldwide. In addition to molecular testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical laboratories have also needed to increase testing capacity to include serological evaluation of patients with suspected or known COVID-19. While regulatory approved serological immunoassays are now widely available from diagnostic manufacturers globally, there is significant debate regarding the clinical utility of these tests, as well as their clinical and analytical performance requirements prior to application. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay evaluation, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for serological testing of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories in the selection, verification, and implementation of serological assays and are of the utmost importance as we expand our pandemic response from initial case tracing and containment to mitigation strategies to minimize resurgence and further morbidity and mortality.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Molecular Testing of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

The diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection globally has relied extensively on molecular testing, contributing vitally to case identification, isolation, contact tracing, and rationalization of infection control measures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinical laboratories have thus needed to verify newly developed molecular tests and increase testing capacity at an unprecedented rate. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a global health threat, laboratories continue to encounter challenges in the selection, verification, and interpretation of these tests. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay verification, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide and highlight the continued importance of laboratory medicine in our collective pandemic response.

Staff rostering, split team arrangement, social distancing (physical distancing) and use of personal protective equipment to minimize risk of workplace transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: The recent global survey promoted by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) described staff rostering and organization as significant operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A discrete event simulation was used to explore the impact of different permutations of staff roster, including the number of shifts per day, the number of staff on duty per shift, overall number of staff accessible to work in the laboratory (i.e. overall staff pool), the frequency of shift changes (i.e. number of consecutive days worked), fixed work-rest days and split team arrangement on workplace transmission of COVID-19 by a simulated index staff who acquired the infection from the community over 21 days. Additionally, the impact of workplace social distancing (physical distancing) and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were investigated. RESULTS: A higher rate of transmission was associated with smaller overall staff pool (expressed as multiples of the number of staff per shift), higher number of shifts per day, higher number of staff per shift, and longer consecutive days worked. Having fixed work-rest arrangement did not significantly reduce the transmission rate unless the workplace outbreak was prolonged. Social distancing and PPE use significantly reduced the transmission rate. CONCLUSION: Laboratories should consider organizing the staff into smaller teams/shift and reduce the number of consecutive days worked. Additionally, our observation aligns with the IFCC biosafety recommendation of monitoring staff health (to detect early infection), split team arrangement, workplace social distancing and use of PPE.

Operational considerations and challenges of biochemistry laboratories during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 conducted a global survey to understand how biochemistry laboratories manage the operational challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: An electronic survey was distributed globally to record the operational considerations to mitigate biosafety risks in the laboratory. Additionally, the laboratories were asked to indicate the operational challenges they faced. Results: A total of 1210 valid submissions were included in this analysis. Most of the survey participants worked in hospital laboratories. Around 15% of laboratories restricted certain tests on patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19 over biosafety concerns. Just over 10% of the laboratories had to restrict their test menu or services due to resource constraints. Approximately a third of laboratories performed temperature monitoring, while two thirds of laboratories increased the frequency of disinfection. Just less than 50% of the laboratories split their teams. The greatest reported challenge faced by laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic is securing sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), analytical equipment, including those used at the point of care, as well as reagents, consumables and other laboratory materials. This was followed by having inadequate staff, managing their morale, anxiety and deployment. Conclusions: The restriction of tests and services may have undesirable clinical consequences as clinicians are deprived of important information to deliver appropriate care to their patients. Staff rostering and biosafety concerns require longer-term solutions as they are crucial for the continued operation of the laboratory during what may well be a prolonged pandemic.

Laboratory practices to mitigate biohazard risks during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: A global survey was conducted by the IFCC Task Force on COVID-19 to better understand how general biochemistry laboratories manage the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical processes to mitigate biohazard risks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: An electronic survey was developed to record the general characteristics of the laboratory, as well as the pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical and operational practices of biochemistry laboratories that are managing clinical samples of patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 1210 submissions were included in the analysis. The majority of responses came from hospital central/core laboratories that serve hospital patient groups and handle moderate daily sample volumes. There has been a decrease in the use of pneumatic tube transport, increase in hand delivery and increase in number of layers of plastic bags for samples of patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Surgical face masks and gloves are the most commonly used personal protective equipment (PPE). Just >50% of the laboratories did not perform an additional decontamination step on the instrument after analysis of samples from patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A fifth of laboratories disallowed add-on testing on these samples. Less than a quarter of laboratories autoclaved their samples prior to disposal. Conclusions: The survey responses showed wide variation in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practices in terms of PPE adoption and biosafety processes. It is likely that many of the suboptimal biosafety practices are related to practical local factors, such as limited PPE availability and lack of automated instrumentation.