The role of analytical performance specifications in international guidelines and standards dealing with metrological traceability in laboratory medicine.

The goal of metrological traceability is to have equivalent results for a measurand in clinical samples (CSs) irrespective of the in-vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD-MD) used for measurements. The International Standards Organization standard 17511 defines requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples used with IVD-MDs. Each step in metrological traceability has an uncertainty associated with the value assigned to a material. The uncertainty at each step adds to the uncertainty from preceding steps such that the combined uncertainty gets larger at each step. The combined uncertainty for a CS result must fulfil an analytical performance specification (APS) for the maximum allowable uncertainty (umax CS). The umax CS can be partitioned among the steps in a metrological traceability calibration hierarachy to derive the APS for maximum allowable uncertainty at each step. Similarly, the criterion for maximum acceptable noncommutability bias can be derived from the umax CS. One of the challenges in determining if umax CS is fulfilled is determining the repeatability uncertainty (u Rw) from operating an IVD-MD within a clinical laboratory. Most of the current recommendations for estimating u Rw from internal quality control data do not use a sufficiently representative time interval to capture all relevant sources of variability in measurement results. Consequently, underestimation of u Rw is common and may compromise assessment of how well current IVD-MDs and their supporting calibration hierarchies meet the needs of clinical care providers.

Recommendations for Setting a Criterion and Assessing Commutability of Sample Materials Used in External Quality Assessment/Proficiency Testing Schemes.

It is important for external quality assessment materials (EQAMs) to be commutable with clinical samples; i.e., they should behave like clinical samples when measured using end-user clinical laboratory in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MDs). Using commutable EQAMs makes it possible to evaluate metrological traceability and/or equivalence of results between IVD-MDs. The criterion for assessing commutability of an EQAM between 2 IVD-MDs is that its result should be within the prediction interval limits based on the statistical distribution of the clinical sample results from the 2 IVD-MDs being compared. The width of the prediction interval is, among other things, dependent on the analytical performance characteristics of the IVD-MDs. A presupposition for using this criterion is that the differences in nonselectivity between the 2 IVD-MDs being compared are acceptable. An acceptable difference in nonselectivity should be small relative to the analytical performance specifications used in the external quality assessment scheme. The acceptable difference in nonselectivity is used to modify the prediction interval criterion for commutability assessment. The present report provides recommendations on how to establish a criterion for acceptable commutability for EQAMS, establish the difference in nonselectivity that can be accepted between IVD-MDs, and perform a commutability assessment. The report also contains examples for performing a commutability assessment of EQAMs.

Markers of Fungal Translocation Are Elevated During Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Induce NF-κB Triggered Inflammation.

Long COVID, a type of Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS CoV-2 infection (PASC), has been associated with sustained elevated levels of immune activation and inflammation. However, the pathophysiological mechanisms that drive this inflammation remain unknown. Inflammation during acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be exacerbated by microbial translocation (from the gut and/or lung) to the blood. Whether microbial translocation contributes to inflammation during PASC is unknown. We found higher levels of fungal translocation - measured as {beta}-glucan, a fungal cell wall polysaccharide - in the plasma of individuals experiencing PASC compared to those without PASC or SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. The higher {beta}-glucan correlated with higher levels of markers of inflammation and elevated levels of host metabolites involved in activating N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptors (such as metabolites within the tryptophan catabolism pathway) with established neuro-toxic properties. Mechanistically, {beta}-glucan can directly induce inflammation by binding to myeloid cells (via the Dectin-1 receptor) and activating Syk/NF-{kappa}B signaling. Using an in vitro Dectin-1/NF-{kappa}B reporter model, we found that plasma from individuals experiencing PASC induced higher NF-{kappa}B signaling compared to plasma from SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. This higher NF-{kappa}B signaling was abrogated by the Syk inhibitor Piceatannol. These data suggest a potential targetable mechanism linking fungal translocation and inflammation during PASC.

The evolving role of commutability in metrological traceability.

Commutability is a property of a reference material (RM) which denotes that the analytical response in measurement procedures (MPs) observed for the measurand is the same for the RM as for clinical samples that contain the same amount of the measurand. Matrix-based secondary calibrators are required to be commutable with clinical samples to achieve metrological traceability of results from a clinical laboratory MP to higher order references. Results for clinical samples may not agree among different end-user MPs if a noncommutable RM is used in the calibration hierarchy for one or more of the MPs. Consequently, a useful RM is one that is commutable with clinical samples for all or most MPs in common use. If a matrix-based RM is noncommutable for one or a few MPs, a correction for the noncommutability bias may be added in the calibration hierarchy to enable the results for clinical samples to be metrologically traceable to the RM. Producing a large batch of matrix-based RM requires pooling single donations and making various modifications of the matrix such as spiking with exogenous substances, freezing or lyophilization. These modifications could potentially affect commutability of the RM and compromise its suitability. Documentation of commutability of matrix-based RMs used as calibrators is required by the International Organization for Standardization and the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine. We describe how commutability was recognized as a critical requirement for metrological traceability and we present recommendations from the IFCC Working Groups on Commutability and on Commutability in Metrological Traceability.

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.

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.