Laboratory investigation of peritoneal fluids: an updated practical approach based on the available evidence.

Even though analysis of peritoneal fluids (PF) is often requested to medical laboratories for biochemical and morphological tests, there is still no mutual agreement on what the most appropriate way is to manage PF samples and which tests should be appropriately executed. In this update, we tried to identify the most useful tests for PF analysis to establish best practice indications. We performed a literature review and examined available guidelines to select the most appropriate tests by an evidence-based approach. Accordingly, the basic PF profile should include (1) serum to effusion albumin gradient and (2) automated cell counts with differential analysis. This profile allows to determine the PF nature, differentiating between 'high-albumin gradient' and 'low-albumin gradient' effusions, which helps to identify the pathophysiological process causing the ascites formation. Restricted to specific clinical situations, additional tests can be requested as follows: PF lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and glucose, to exclude (LDH) or confirm (glucose) secondary bacterial peritonitis; PF total protein, to differentiate ascites of cardiac origin from other causes; PF (pancreatic) amylase, for the identification of pancreatic ascites; PF bilirubin, when a choleperitoneum is suspected; PF triglycerides, in differentiating chylous from pseudochylous ascites and PF creatinine, to detect intraperitoneal urinary leakage.

Validation of metrological traceability of the new generation of Abbott Alinity alkaline phosphatase assay.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, Abbott Diagnostics marketed a new generation of Alinity enzyme assays, introducing a multiparametric calibrator [Consolidated Chemistry Calibrator (ConCC)] in place of or in addition to factor-based calibrations. For alkaline phosphatase (ALP), both calibration options are offered, i.e., with ConCC (ALP2) and with an experimental calibration factor (ALP2F). Both options are declared traceable to the 2011 IFCC reference measurement procedure (RMP). Before to replace the old generation (ALP1) with the new one, we decided to validate the trueness of ALP2/ALP2F. METHODS: Three approaches were employed: (a) preliminary comparison on 48 native frozen serum samples with ALP1, of which traceability to RMP was previously successfully verified; (b) examination of three banked serum pools (BSP) with values assigned by RMP; (c) direct comparison with RMP on a set of 24 fresh serum samples. Bias estimation and regression studies were performed, and the standard measurement uncertainty associated with ALP measurements on clinical samples (uresult) was estimated and compared with established analytical performance specifications (APS). ConCC commutability was also assessed. RESULTS: A positive proportional bias was found with both ALP2 and ALP2F when compared to ALP1 and RMP. This positive bias was confirmed on BSP: in average, +13.1 % for ALP2 and +10.0 % for ALP2F, respectively. uresult were 13.28 % for ALP2 and 10.04 % for ALP2F, both not fulfilling the minimum APS of 4.0 %. Furthermore, ConCC was not commutable with clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our results unearth problems in the correct implementation of traceability of Alinity ALP2/ALP2F, with the risk for the new assay to be unfit for clinical purposes.

Corrigendum: Definition of the immune parameters related to COVID-19 severity.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.850846.].

C-reactive protein and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: the importance of harmonized measurements.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a cytokine-mediated acute phase reactant with a recognized role in inflammatory conditions and infectious disease. In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), elevated CRP concentrations in serum were frequently detected and significantly associated with poor outcome in terms of disease severity, need for intensive care, and in-hospital death. For these reasons, the marker was proposed as a powerful test for prognostic classification of COVID-19 patients. In most of available publications, there was however confounding information about how interpretative criteria for CRP in COVID-19 should be derived, including quality of employed assays and optimal cut-off definition. Assuring result harmonization and controlling measurement uncertainty in terms of performance specifications are fundamental to allow worldwide application of clinical information according to specific CRP thresholds and to avoid risk of patient misclassification.

The laboratory investigation of pleural fluids: An update based on the available evidence.

Selecting appropriate laboratory tests based on available evidence is central to improve clinical effectiveness and impacting on patient outcome. Although long studied, there is no mutual agreement upon pleural fluid (PF) management in the laboratory context. Given the experienced confusion about the real contribution of laboratory investigations to guide clinical interpretation, in this update, we tried to identify useful tests for the PF analysis, aiming to unravel critical points and to define a common line in requesting modalities and practical management. We performed a careful literature review and a deepened study on available guidelines to finalize an evidence-based test selection, intended for clinicians' use to streamline PF management. The following tests depicted the basic PF profile routinely needed: (1) abbreviated Light's criteria (PF/serum total protein ratio and PF/serum lactate dehydrogenase ratio) and (2) cell count with differential analysis of haematological cells. This profile fulfils the primary goal to determine the PF nature and discriminate between exudative and transudative effusions. In specific circumstances, clinicians may consider additional tests as follows: the albumin serum to PF gradient, which reduces exudate misclassification rate by Light's criteria in patients with cardiac failure assuming diuretics; PF triglycerides, in differentiating chylothorax from pseudochylothorax; PF glucose, for identification of parapneumonic effusions and other causes of effusion, such as rheumatoid arthritis and malignancy; PF pH, in suspected infectious pleuritis and to give indications for pleural drainage; and PF adenosine deaminase, for a rapid detection of tuberculous effusion.

Pursuing appropriateness of laboratory tests: a 15-year experience in an academic medical institution.

Appropriateness in Laboratory Medicine has been the object of various types of interventions. From published experiences, it is now clear that to effectively manage the laboratory test demand it is recommended to activate evidence-based preventative strategies stopping inappropriate requests before they can reach the laboratory. To guarantee appropriate laboratory test utilization, healthcare institutions should implement and optimize a computerized provider order entry (CPOE), exploiting the potential of electronic requesting as "enabling factor" for reinforcing appropriateness and sustaining its effects over time. In our academic institution, over the last 15 years, our medical laboratory has enforced various interventions to improve test appropriateness, all directly or indirectly based on CPOE use. The following types of intervention were implemented: (1) applying specific recommendations supported by monitoring by CPOE as well as a continuous consultation with clinicians (tumour markers); (2) removing outdated tests and avoiding redundant duplications (cardiac markers, pancreatic enzymes); (3) order restraints to selected wards and gating policy (procalcitonin, B-type natriuretic peptide, homocysteine); (4) reflex testing (bilirubin fractions, free prostate-specific antigen, aminotransferases, magnesium in hypocalcemia); and (5) minimum retesting interval (D-Dimer, vitamin B12, C-reactive protein, γ-glutamyltranspeptidase). In this paper, we reviewed these interventions and summarized their outcomes primarily related to the changes in total test volumes and cost savings, without neglecting patient safety. Our experience confirmed that laboratory professionals have an irreplaceable role as "stewards" in designing, implementing, evaluating, and maintaining interventions focused to improving test appropriateness.

Definition of the Immune Parameters Related to COVID-19 Severity.

A relevant portion of patients with disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) experience negative outcome, and several laboratory tests have been proposed to predict disease severity. Among others, dramatic changes in peripheral blood cells have been described. We developed and validated a laboratory score solely based on blood cell parameters to predict survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We retrospectively analyzed 1,619 blood cell count from 226 consecutively hospitalized COVID-19 patients to select parameters for inclusion in a laboratory score predicting severity of disease and survival. The score was derived from lymphocyte- and granulocyte-associated parameters and validated on a separate cohort of 140 consecutive COVID-19 patients. Using ROC curve analysis, a best cutoff for score of 30.6 was derived, which was associated to an overall 82.0% sensitivity (95% CI: 78-84) and 82.5% specificity (95% CI: 80-84) for detecting outcome. The scoring trend effectively separated survivor and non-survivor groups, starting 2 weeks before the end of the hospitalization period. Patients' score time points were also classified into mild, moderate, severe, and critical according to the symptomatic oxygen therapy administered. Fluctuations of the score should be recorded to highlight a favorable or unfortunate trend of the disease. The predictive score was found to reflect and anticipate the disease gravity, defined by the type of the oxygen support used, giving a proof of its clinical relevance. It offers a fast and reliable tool for supporting clinical decisions and, most important, triage in terms of not only prioritization but also allocation of limited medical resources, especially in the period when therapies are still symptomatic and many are under development. In fact, a prolonged and progressive increase of the score can suggest impaired chances of survival and/or an urgent need for intensive care unit admission.

Lipase elevation in serum of COVID-19 patients: frequency, extent of increase and clinical value.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies reported lipase elevations in serum of COVID-19 patients trying to establish a causal link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and pancreatic damage. However, the degree and prevalence of hyperlipasemia was not uniform across studies. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 1,092 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and at least one available lipase result. The number and frequency of patients with lipase above the upper reference limit (URL), >3 URL, and >6 URL were estimated. Correlations between lipase values and other biomarkers of organ or tissue damage were performed to identify possible extra-pancreatic sources of lipase release. The potential prognostic role of lipase to predict death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission during hospitalization was also evaluated. RESULTS: Lipase was >URL in 344 (31.5%) of COVID-19 patients. Among them, 65 (5.9%) and 25 (2.3%) had a peak lipase >3 URL and >6 URL, respectively. In the latter group, three patients had acute pancreatitis of gallstone or drug-induced etiology. In others, the etiology of lipase elevations appeared multifactorial and could not be directly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. No correlation was found between lipase and other tested biomarkers of organ and tissue damage. Lipase concentrations were not different between survivors and non-survivors; however, lipase was significantly increased (p<0.001) in patients admitted to the ICU, even if the odds ratio for lipase as predictor of ICU admission was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Lipase was elevated in ∼1/3 of COVID-19 patients, but the clinical significance of this finding is unclear and irrelevant to patient prognosis during hospitalization.

Sources and clinical significance of aspartate aminotransferase increases in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) is often increased in COVID-19 and, in some studies, AST abnormalities were associated with mortality risk. METHODS: 2054 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were studied. To identify sources of AST release, correlations between AST peak values and other biomarkers of tissue damage, i.e., alanine aminotransferase (ALT) for hepatocellular damage, creatine kinase (CK) for muscle damage, lactate dehydrogenase for multiorgan involvement, alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyltransferase for cholestatic injury, and C-reactive protein (CRP) for systemic inflammation, were performed and coefficients of determination estimated. The role of AST to predict death and intensive care unit admission during hospitalization was also evaluated. All measurements were performed using standardized assays. RESULTS: AST was increased in 69% of patients. Increases could be fully explained by summing the effects of hepatocellular injury [AST dependence from ALT, 66.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 64.5-69.1)] and muscle damage [AST dependence from CK, 42.6% (CI: 39.3-45.8)]. We were unable to demonstrate an independent association of AST increases with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: The mechanisms for abnormal AST in COVID-19 are likely multifactorial and a status related to tissue suffering could play a significant role. The clinical significance of AST elevations remains unclear.

Prognostic role of Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) measurement in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial disease with limited therapeutic options. The measurement of Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) glycoprotein has been proposed for evaluating the risk of IPF progression and predicting patient prognosis, but the robustness of available evidence is unclear. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases for peer-reviewed literature from inception to April 2020. Original articles investigating KL-6 as prognostic marker for IPF were retrieved. Considered outcomes were the risk of developing acute exacerbation (AE) and patient survival. Meta-analysis of selected studies was conducted, and quantitative data were uniformed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) estimates, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review and 14 were finally meta-analysed. For AE development, the pooled OR (seven studies) for KL-6 was 2.72 (CI 1.22-6.06; p=0.015). However, a high degree of heterogeneity (I2=85.6%) was found among selected studies. Using data from three studies reporting binary data, a pooled sensitivity of 72% (CI 60-82%) and a specificity of 60% (CI 52-68%) were found for KL-6 measurement in detecting insurgence of AE in IPF patients. Pooled HR (seven studies) for mortality prediction was 1.009 (CI 0.983-1.036; p=0.505). CONCLUSIONS: Although our meta-analysis suggested that IPF patients with increased KL-6 concentrations had a significant increased risk of developing AE, the detection power of the evaluated biomarker is limited. Furthermore, no relationship between biomarker concentrations and mortality was found. Caution is also needed when extending obtained results to non-Asian populations.

A Comprehensive Appraisal of Laboratory Biochemistry Tests as Major Predictors of COVID-19 Severity.

CONTEXT.­: A relevant portion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients develop severe disease with negative outcomes. Several biomarkers have been proposed to predict COVID-19 severity, but no definite interpretative criteria have been established to date for stratifying risk. OBJECTIVE.­: To evaluate 6 serum biomarkers (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, albumin, ferritin, and cardiac troponin T) for predicting COVID-19 severity and to define related cutoffs able to aid clinicians in risk stratification of hospitalized patients. DESIGN.­: A retrospective study of 427 COVID-19 patients was performed. Patients were divided into groups based on their clinical outcome: nonsurvivors versus survivors and patients admitted to an intensive care unit versus others. Receiver operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios were employed to define predictive cutoffs for evaluated markers. RESULTS.­: Marker concentrations at peak were significantly different between groups for both selected outcomes. At univariate logistic regression analysis, all parameters were significantly associated with higher odds of death and intensive care. At the multivariate analysis, high concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase and low concentrations of albumin in serum remained significantly associated with higher odds of death, whereas only low lactate dehydrogenase activities remained associated with lower odds of intensive care admission. The best cutoffs for death prediction were greater than 731 U/L for lactate dehydrogenase and 18 g/L or lower for albumin, whereas a lactate dehydrogenase activity lower than 425 U/L was associated with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.10 for intensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS.­: Our study identifies which biochemistry tests represent major predictors of COVID-19 severity and defines the best cutoffs for their use.