GFAP point-of-care measurement for prehospital diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage in acute coma.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital triage and treatment of patients with acute coma is challenging for rescue services, as the underlying pathological conditions are highly heterogenous. Recently, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has been identified as a biomarker of intracranial hemorrhage. The aim of this prospective study was to test whether prehospital GFAP measurements on a point-of-care device have the potential to rapidly differentiate intracranial hemorrhage from other causes of acute coma. METHODS: This study was conducted at the RKH Klinikum Ludwigsburg, a tertiary care hospital in the northern vicinity of Stuttgart, Germany. Patients who were admitted to the emergency department with the prehospital diagnosis of acute coma (Glasgow Coma Scale scores between 3 and 8) were enrolled prospectively. Blood samples were collected in the prehospital phase. Plasma GFAP measurements were performed on the i-STAT Alinity® (Abbott) device (duration of analysis 15 min) shortly after hospital admission. RESULTS: 143 patients were enrolled (mean age 65 ± 20 years, 42.7% female). GFAP plasma concentrations were strongly elevated in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (n = 51) compared to all other coma etiologies (3352 pg/mL [IQR 613-10001] vs. 43 pg/mL [IQR 29-91.25], p < 0.001). When using an optimal cut-off value of 101 pg/mL, sensitivity for identifying intracranial hemorrhage was 94.1% (specificity 78.9%, positive predictive value 71.6%, negative predictive value 95.9%). In-hospital mortality risk was associated with prehospital GFAP values. CONCLUSION: Increased GFAP plasma concentrations in patients with acute coma identify intracranial hemorrhage with high diagnostic accuracy. Prehospital GFAP measurements on a point-of-care platform allow rapid stratification according to the underlying cause of coma by rescue services. This could have major impact on triage and management of these critically ill patients.

The multidimensional value of natriuretic peptides in heart failure, integrating laboratory and clinical aspects.

Natriuretic peptides (NP) play an essential role in heart failure (HF) regulation, and their measurement has improved diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Clinical symptoms and objective measurements, such as NP levels, should be included in the HF definition to render it more reliable and consistent among observers, hospitals, and healthcare systems. BNP and NT-proBNP are reasonable surrogates for cardiac disease, and their measurement is critical to early diagnosis and risk stratification of HF patients. NPs should be measured in all patients presenting with dyspnea or other symptoms suggestive of HF to facilitate early diagnosis and risk stratification. Both BNP and NT-proBNP are currently used for guided HF management and display comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Standardized cutoffs for each NP assay are essential for data comparison. The value of NP testing is recognized at various levels, including patient empowerment and education, analytical and operational issues, clinical HF management, and cost-effectiveness.

Graphic type differentiation of cell count data for diagnosis of early and late periprosthetic joint infection: A new method.

BACKGROUND: Graphic type differentiation of cell count data of synovial aspirates is a new method for the diagnosis of early and late periprosthetic joint infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyse if the same 6 LMNE-types can be differentiated in the new Yumizen H500 cell counter as it was the case for the old cell counter ABX Pentra XL 80 of previous publications, to verify if the erythrocyte and thrombocyte curves of the new device give additional information and to calculate the difference of cell count in LMNE-type I and III (with abrasion) in the cell counter and in the manual counting chamber (Neubauer improved). METHODS: 450 aspirates of 152 total hip arthroplasties and 298 knee arthroplasties obtained for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection were analysed with the Yumizen H500. RESULTS: All LMNE-matrices of the 450 aspirates could assigned to one of the six LMNE-types. There were 76 LMNE-type I, 72 LMNE-type II, 14 LMNE-type III, 241 LMNE-type IV, 36 LMNE-type V and 12 LMNE-type VI. The erythrocyte and thrombocyte distribution curves were very helpful for differentiation of hematoma and infection. The cell count in the manual counting procedure was lower than in the cell counter: for the LMNE-type I (abrasion type) the median of the difference was 925/µL (median) and for the LMNE-type III (combined type of infection and abrasion) 3570/µL (median). CONCLUSION: The described graphic type differentiation is a new and helpful method for differentiation of hematoma and early PJI as well as abrasion and late PJI.

How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Guidelines for Cardiac Biomarkers Management in Europe? The CArdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) Study of the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine Task Group on Cardiac Markers.

BACKGROUND: The CARdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) program is a multi-country audit of the use of cardiac biomarkers in routine clinical practice. METHODS: An email link to a web-based questionnaire of 30 multiple-choice questions was distributed via the professional societies in Europe. RESULTS: 374 questionnaires were returned from 39 countries, the majority of which were in northern Europe with a response rate of 8.2%-42.0%. The majority of the respondents were from hospitals with proportionately more responses from central hospitals than district hospitals. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker, evenly split between cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI). Aspartate transaminase and lactate dehydrogenase are no longer offered as cardiac biomarkers. Creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB isoenzyme, and myoglobin continue to be offered as part of the cardiac biomarker profile in approximately on 50% of respondents. There is widespread utilization of high sensitivity (hs) troponin assays. The majority of cTnT users measure hs-cTnT. 29.5% of laboratories measure cTnI by a non-hs method but there has been substantial conversion to hs-cTnI. The majority of respondents used ng/L and use the 99th percentile as the upper reference limit (71.9% of respondents). A range of diagnostic protocols are in use. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread utilization of hs troponin methods. A significant minority do not use the 99th percentile as recommended and there is, as yet, little uptake of very rapid diagnostic strategies. Education of laboratory professionals and clinicians remains a priority.

High-resolution pediatric reference intervals for 15 biochemical analytes described using fractional polynomials.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of children's laboratory test results requires consideration of the extensive changes that occur during physiological development and result in pronounced sex- and age-specific dynamics in many biochemical analytes. Pediatric reference intervals have to account for these dynamics, but ethical and practical challenges limit the availability of appropriate pediatric reference intervals that cover children from birth to adulthood. We have therefore initiated the multi-center data-driven PEDREF project (Next-Generation Pediatric Reference Intervals) to create pediatric reference intervals using data from laboratory information systems. METHODS: We analyzed laboratory test results from 638,683 patients (217,883-982,548 samples per analyte, a median of 603,745 test results per analyte, and 10,298,067 test results in total) performed during patient care in 13 German centers. Test results from children with repeat measurements were discarded, and we estimated the distribution of physiological test results using a validated statistical approach (kosmic). RESULTS: We report continuous pediatric reference intervals and percentile charts for alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyl-transferase, total protein, albumin, creatinine, urea, sodium, potassium, calcium, chloride, anorganic phosphate, and magnesium. Reference intervals are provided as tables and fractional polynomial functions (i.e., mathematical equations) that can be integrated into laboratory information systems. Additionally, Z-scores and percentiles enable the normalization of test results by age and sex to facilitate their interpretation across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The provided reference intervals and percentile charts enable precise assessment of laboratory test results in children from birth to adulthood. Our findings highlight the pronounced dynamics in many biochemical analytes in neonates, which require particular consideration in reference intervals to support clinical decision making most effectively.

A proposed Common Training Framework for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine under EU Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications).

European Union (EU) Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications) allows Member States to decide on a common set of minimum knowledge, skills and competences that are needed to pursue a given profession through a Common Training Framework. To be adopted the framework must combine the knowledge, skills and competences of at least one third of the Member States. Professionals who have gained their qualifications under a Common Training Framework will be able to have these recognised automatically within the Union. The backbone of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine's (EFLM) proposed Common Training Framework for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is outlined here. It is based on an Equivalence of Standards in education, training, qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences and the professional conduct associated with specialist practice. In proposing the recognition of specialist practice EFLM has identified 15 EU Member States able to meet Equivalence and in whom the profession and/or its training is regulated (an additional EU Commission requirement). The framework supports and contributes to the Directive's enabling goals for increasing professional mobility, safeguarding consumers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of skills and expertise across the Member States. It represents EFLM's position statement and provides a template for professional societies and/or competent authorities to engage with the EU Commission.

Update on current practice in laboratory medicine in respect of natriuretic peptide testing for heart failure diagnosis and management in Europe. The CARdiac MArker guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE) study.

BACKGROUND: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) initiated the CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) Study to survey if current biomarker testing for heart failure (HF) in Europe is in accordance with up-dated guidelines. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to clinical laboratories via European biochemical societies in 2019. Questions covered the type of natriuretic peptide (NP) assays performed, decision limits for HF, and opinion concerning requirement of different thresholds in patients with renal failure or obesity. RESULTS: There were 347 participating laboratories mostly from European countries with 266 offering NP testing. NP testing was increased from 67% to 77% between 2013 and 2019. NT-proBNP remained the preferred biomarker. Recommended decision limits were implemented for BNP (85%) and better focused for NT-proBNP (40%) than in the previous survey. The survey revealed that laboratorians are willing to support the translation of adjusted cut-off values for age, gender and for patients with conditions like renal insufficiency. CONCLUSION: Guidelines stimulate clinical laboratories to offer NP testing with high value for the diagnosis and management of HF, and to present adjusted medical decision limits. Future guidelines should encourage the use of personalized cut-offs for some confounding factors.

How well do laboratories adhere to recommended guidelines for dyslipidaemia management in Europe? The CArdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) study.

BACKGROUND: The CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CAMARGUE) initiated by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) aims to survey the current use of evidence-based guidelines for dyslipidemia testing in Europe. METHODS: In 2019 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via EFLM National Societies to clinical laboratories in Europe. Questions covered pre-analytics, analytical methods, measurement units, flagging of decision thresholds, and use of decision-enhancing comments. RESULTS: Returns were obtained from 452 laboratories from 28 countries. Most laboratories always use nonfasting blood samples for lipid assays (66%). Lipid profiles are reported in mmol/L by 59% of the laboratories, mainly from 14 countries promoting the use of SI units. Important differences in flagging of decision thresholds were observed, with less than half of the laboratories applying the guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol threshold. Only 17% of the laboratories add an alert comment when familial hypercholesterolemia is suspected and 23% when risk of pancreatitis from hypertriglyceridemia is high. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences among laboratories in Europe in terms of pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical lipid management that could have an important clinical impact. This relates to different availability of assays or different laboratory practices on reporting and flagging of lipid profiles.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and calculated non-HDL cholesterol (=total - HDL cholesterol) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDL cholesterol is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDL cholesterol shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a)-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDL cholesterol and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDL cholesterol decline poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDL cholesterol includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apolipoprotein B measurement can detect elevated LDL particle numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDL cholesterol alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine syllabus for postgraduate education and training for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine: version 5 - 2018.

Although laboratory medicine practise varies across the European Union's (EU) member states, the extent of overlap in scope is such that a common syllabus describing the education and training associated with high-quality, specialist practise can be identified. In turn, such a syllabus can help define the common set of skills, knowledge and competence in a Common Training Framework (CTF) for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine under EU Directive 2013/55/EU (The recognition of Professional Qualifications). In meeting the requirements of the directive's CTF patient safety is particularly enhanced when specialists seek to capitalise on opportunities for free professional migration across EU borders. In updating the fourth syllabus, the fifth expands on individual discipline requirements, new analytical techniques and use of statistics. An outline structure for a training programme is proposed together with expected responsibilities of trainees and trainers; reference is provided to a trainee's log book. In updating the syllabus, it continues to support national programmes and the aims of EU Directive 2013/55/EU in providing safeguards to professional mobility across European borders at a time when the demand for highly qualified professionals is increasing in the face of a disparity in their distribution across Europe. In support of achieving a CTF, the syllabus represents EFLM's position statement for the education and training that underpins the framework.

Quantifying Atherogenic Lipoproteins: Current and Future Challenges in the Era of Personalized Medicine and Very Low Concentrations of LDL Cholesterol. A Consensus Statement from EAS and EFLM.

BACKGROUND: The European Atherosclerosis Society-European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Consensus Panel aims to provide recommendations to optimize atherogenic lipoprotein quantification for cardiovascular risk management. CONTENT: We critically examined LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number assays based on key criteria for medical application of biomarkers. (a) Analytical performance: Discordant LDL cholesterol quantification occurs when LDL cholesterol is measured or calculated with different assays, especially in patients with hypertriglyceridemia >175 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) and low LDL cholesterol concentrations <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Increased lipoprotein(a) should be excluded in patients not achieving LDL cholesterol goals with treatment. Non-HDL cholesterol includes the atherogenic risk component of remnant cholesterol and can be calculated in a standard nonfasting lipid panel without additional expense. ApoB more accurately reflects LDL particle number. (b) Clinical performance: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB are comparable predictors of cardiovascular events in prospective population studies and clinical trials; however, discordance analysis of the markers improves risk prediction by adding remnant cholesterol (included in non-HDL cholesterol) and LDL particle number (with apoB) risk components to LDL cholesterol testing. (c) Clinical and cost-effectiveness: There is no consistent evidence yet that non-HDL cholesterol-, apoB-, or LDL particle-targeted treatment reduces the number of cardiovascular events and healthcare-related costs than treatment targeted to LDL cholesterol. SUMMARY: Follow-up of pre- and on-treatment (measured or calculated) LDL cholesterol concentration in a patient should ideally be performed with the same documented test method. Non-HDL cholesterol (or apoB) should be the secondary treatment target in patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia, in whom LDL cholesterol measurement or calculation is less accurate and often less predictive of cardiovascular risk. Laboratories should report non-HDL cholesterol in all standard lipid panels.

Are Heart Failure Management Recommendations and Guidelines Followed in Laboratory Medicine in Europe and North America? The Cardiac Marker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE) Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to investigate how well heart failure (HF) guidelines for use of natriuretic peptides (NPs) have been implemented in laboratory practice in Europe and North America. METHODS: In 2013 and 2014, a web-based questionnaire was distributed via North American and European biochemical societies. Questions covered assay performed, reason for method choice, decision limits for HF, and laboratory accreditation status. RESULTS: There were 442 European Union and 91 North American participating laboratories with response rates of 50% and 64% from major or university hospitals, respectively. NP measurements were offered in 67% of European Union and 58% of North American respondents. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was most widely used in Europe (68%) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) was more commonly used (58%) in North America. The most frequent reason for use of a specific assay was the availability of instruments that measure either NT-proBNP (51%) or BNP (67%). For diagnosis of acute HF, NT-proBNP decision limits were diverse; age-dependent limits based on the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations were used in only 17% of European sites and 26% of North American sites. For BNP, the guideline-recommended acute HF decision limit of 100 ng/L was better adhered to in Europe (48%) and North America (57%). Surprisingly, similar decision limits were stated for acute and chronic HF by >50% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: NP measurement for HF diagnosis was available in >50% of responding laboratories. However, guideline recommended cutoff values for both acute and chronic HF were still implemented in <30% of participating medical centers.

No se requiere ayuno para la determinacion rutinaria del perfil lipidico: implicaciones clinicas y de laboratorio, incluyendo valores de corte deseables - Declaracion de consenso conjunta de la European Atherosclerosis Society y la European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine / Fasting Is Not Routinely Required for Determination of a Lipid Profile: Clinical and Laboratory Implications Including Flagging at Desirable Concentration Cutpoints - A Joint Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Objetivos: Evaluar criticamente las implicaciones clinicas de la utilizacion del perfil lipidico sin ayuno en lugar de perfiles de lipidos con ayuno y proporcionar orientacion para la elaboracion de informes de laboratorio sobre perfiles lipidicos anormales con ayuno y sin ayuno. Metodos y Resultados: Abundantes datos observacionales, en los que perfiles lipidicos medidos aleatoriamente sin ayuno se han comparado con perfiles lipidicos determinados en condiciones de ayuno, indican que las variaciones medias maximas de 1-6 h despues de ingestas habituales no son clinicamente significativas [+0,3 mmol/L (+26 mg/dL) para trigliceridos; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para colesterol total; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para colesterol-LDL; +0,2 mmol/L (+8 mg/dL) para colesterol de remanentes calculado; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para el colesterol no-HDL calculado]; las concentraciones de colesterol-HDL, apolipoproteina A1, apolipoproteina B, y lipoproteina(a) no se ven afectados por el estado de ayuno/ no ayuno. Ademas, las concentraciones en ayunas y sin ayuno varian de manera similar con el tiempo y son comparables en la prediccion de la enfermedad cardiovascular. Para mejorar el cumplimiento del paciente con las condiciones para la determinacion del perfil lipidico, por lo tanto, se recomienda el uso rutinario de los perfiles lipidicos sin ayuno, mientras que se puede considerar la toma de muestra en ayunas cuando los trigliceridos sin ayuno son >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). Para las muestras sin ayuno, los informes de laboratorio deberian marcar como concentraciones anormales a trigliceridos ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), colesterol total ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), colesterol-LDL ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), colesterol remanente calculado ≥0,9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), colesterol no-HDL calculado ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL colesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoproteina A1 ≤1,25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoproteina B ≥1,0 g/L (100 mg/dL), y lipoproteina(a) ≥50 mg/dL (percentil 80); para muestras con ayuno, las concentraciones anormales corresponden a trigliceridos ≥1,7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Aquellas concentraciones que ponen en peligro la vida requieren derivacion inmediata debido al riesgo de pancreatitis cuando los trigliceridos son >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), de hipercolesterolemia familiar homocigotica cuando el colesterol-LDL es >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) o hipercolesterolemia familiar heterocigota cuando el colesterol-LDL es >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), y debido al riesgo cardiovascular muy alto cuando la lipoproteina(a) es >150 mg/dL (percentil 99). Conclusiones: Recomendamos la utilizacion de rutina de muestras de sangre sin ayuno para la evaluacion del perfil lipidico plasmatico. Los informes de laboratorio deberian marcar resultados anormales basandose en valores de corte deseables. Las determinaciones con ayuno y sin ayuno deben ser complementarias, pero no se excluyen mutuamente.

Aims: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. Methods and Results: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/nonfasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, whereas fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides are >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For nonfasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral for the risk of pancreatitis when triglycerides are >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL), for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), and for very high cardiovascular risk when lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile). Conclusions: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cutpoints. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Myocardial Infarction: The CARdiac MArker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CARMAGUE).

BACKGROUND: We undertook an assessment of current use of evidence-based guidelines for the use of cardiac biomarkers in Europe (EU) and North America (NA). METHODS: In 2013-2014 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via NA and EU biochemical societies. Questions covered cardiac biomarkers measured, analytical methods used, decision thresholds, and use of decision-making protocols. Results were collated using a central database and analyzed using comparative and descriptive nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: In EU, returns were obtained from 442 hospitals, 50% central or university hospitals, and 39% from local hospitals from 35 countries with 395/442 (89%) provided an acute service. In NA there were 91 responses (63.7% central or university hospitals, 19.8% community hospitals) with 76/91 (83.5%) providing an acute service. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker in 99.5% (EU) and 98.7% (NA), and the first line marker in 97.7% (EU) and 97.4% (NA). There were important differences in the choice of decision limits and their derivations. The origin of the information was also significantly different, with EU vs NA as follows: package insert, 61.9% vs 40%; publications, 17.1% vs 15.0%; local clinical or analytical validation choice, 21.0% vs 45.0%; P = 0.0003. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between EU and NA use of cardiac biomarkers. This probably relates to different availability of assays between EU and NA (such as high-sensitivity troponin assays) and different laboratory practices on assay introduction (greater local evaluation of assay performance occurred in NA).

Fasting Is Not Routinely Required for Determination of a Lipid Profile: Clinical and Laboratory Implications Including Flagging at Desirable Concentration Cutpoints-A Joint Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

AIMS: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, whereas fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides are >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral for the risk of pancreatitis when triglycerides are >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL), for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), and for very high cardiovascular risk when lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cutpoints. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Fasting is not routinely required for determination of a lipid profile: clinical and laboratory implications including flagging at desirable concentration cut-points-a joint consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

AIMS: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, while fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral when triglycerides >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL) for the risk of pancreatitis, LDL cholesterol >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, LDL cholesterol >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL) for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, and lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile) for very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cut-points. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Clinical impact of direct HDLc and LDLc method bias in hypertriglyceridemia. A simulation study of the EAS-EFLM Collaborative Project Group.

BACKGROUND: Despite international standardization programs for LDLc and HDLc measurements, results vary significantly with methods from different manufacturers. We aimed to simulate the impact of analytical error and hypertriglyceridemia on HDLc- and LDLc-based cardiovascular risk classification. METHODS: From the Dutch National EQA-2012 external quality assessment of 200 clinical laboratories, we examined data from normotriglyceridemic (∼ 1 mmol/l) and hypertriglyceridemic (∼ 7 mmol/l) serum pools with lipid target values assigned by the Lipid Reference Laboratory in Rotterdam. HDLc and LDLc were measured using direct methods of Abbott, Beckman, Siemens, Roche, Olympus, or Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. We simulated risk reclassification using HDL- and sex-specific SCORE multipliers considering two fictitious moderate-risk patients with initial SCORE 4% (man) and 3% (woman). Classification into high-risk treatment groups (LDLc >2.50 mmol/l) was compared between calculated LDLc and direct LDLc methods. RESULTS: Overall HDLc measurements in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed negative mean bias of -15%. HDL-multipliers falsely reclassified 70% of women and 43% of men to a high-risk (SCORE >5%) in hypertriglyceridemic serum (P < 0.0001 vs. normotriglyceridemic serum) with method-dependent risk reclassifications. Direct LDLc in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed positive mean bias with Abbott (+16%) and Beckman (+14%) and negative mean bias with Roche (-7%). In hypertriglyceridemic serum, 57% of direct LDLc measurements were above high-risk treatment goal (2.50 mmol/l) vs. 29% of direct LDLc (33% of calculated LDLc) in normotriglyceridemic sera. CONCLUSION: LDLc and HDLc measurements are unreliable in severe hypertriglyceridemia, and should be applied with caution in SCORE risk classification and therapeutic strategies.

Do laboratories follow heart failure recommendations and guidelines and did we improve? The CARdiac MArker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE).

BACKGROUND: Natriuretic peptides (NP) are well-established markers of heart failure (HF). During the past 5 years, analytical and clinical recommendations for measurement of these biomarkers have been published in guidelines. The aim of this follow-up survey was to investigate how well these guidelines for measurement of NP have been implemented in laboratory practice in Europe. METHODS: Member societies of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine were invited in 2009 to participate in a web-based audit questionnaire. The questionnaire requested information on type of tests performed, decision limits for HF, turn-around time and frequency of testing. RESULTS: There was a moderate increase (12%) of laboratories measuring NP compared to the initial survey in 2006. The most frequently used HF decision limits for B-type NP (BNP) and N-terminal BNP (NT-proBNP) were, respectively, 100 ng/L and 125 ng/L, derived from the package inserts in 55%. Fifty laboratories used a second decision limit. Age or gender dependent decision limits were applied in 10% (8.5% in 2006). The vast majority of laboratories (80%) did not have any criteria regarding frequency of testing, compared to 33% in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of NP measurement for HF management was a slow process between 2006 and 2009 at a time when guidelines had just been established. The decision limits were derived from package insert information and literature. There was great uncertainty concerning frequency of testing which may reflect the debate about the biological variability which was not published for most of the assays in 2009.

Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation.

BACKGROUND: Correct information provided by guidelines may reduce laboratory test related errors during the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phase and increase the quality of laboratory results. METHODS: Twelve clinical practice guidelines were reviewed regarding inclusion of important laboratory investigations. Based on the results and the authors' experience, two checklists were developed: one comprehensive list including topics that authors of guidelines may consider and one consisting of minimal standards that should be covered for all laboratory tests recommended in clinical practice guidelines. The number of topics addressed by the guidelines was related to involvement of laboratory medicine specialists in the guideline development process. RESULTS: The comprehensive list suggests 33 pre- analytical, 37 analytical and 10 post-analytical items. The mean percentage of topics dealt with by the guidelines was 33% (median 30%, range 17%-55%) and inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline committee significantly increased the number of topics addressed. Information about patient status, biological and analytical interferences and sample handling were scarce in most guidelines even if the inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the development process seemingly led to increased focus on, e.g., sample type, sample handling and analytical variation. Examples underlining the importance of including laboratory items are given. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline development process may increase the focus on important laboratory related items even if this information is usually limited. Two checklists are suggested to help guideline developers to cover all important topics related to laboratory testing.