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.

Traceability validation of six enzyme measurements on the Abbott Alinity c analytical system.

Background Laboratory professionals should independently verify the correct implementation of metrological traceability of commercial measuring systems and determine if their performance is fit for purpose. We evaluated the trueness, uncertainty of measurements, and transferability of six clinically important enzyme measurements (alanine aminotransferase [ALT], alkaline phosphatase [ALP], aspartate aminotransferase [AST], creatine kinase [CK], γ-glutamyltransferase [γGT], and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) performed on the Abbott Alinity c analytical system. Methods Target values and associated uncertainties were assigned to three pools for each enzyme by using the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference measurement procedures (RMPs) and the pools were then measured on the Alinity system. Bias estimation and regression studies were performed, and the uncertainty associated with Alinity measurements was also estimated, using analytical performance specifications (APS) derived from biological variability of measurands as goals. Finally, to validate the transferability of the obtained results, a comparison study between two Alinity systems located in Milan, Italy, and Bydgoszcz, Poland, was carried out. Results Correct implementation of traceability to the IFCC RMPs and acceptable measurement uncertainty fulfilling desirable (ALP, AST, LDH) or optimal APS (ALT, CK, γGT) was verified for all evaluated enzymes. An optimal alignment between the two Alinity systems located in Milan and Bydgoszcz was also found for all enzyme measurements. Conclusions We confirmed that measurements of ALT, ALP, AST, CK, γGT, and LDH performed on the Alinity c analytical system are correctly standardized to the IFCC reference measurement systems and the system alignment is consistent between different platforms.

Trueness Evaluation and Verification of Interassay Agreement of 11 Serum IgA Measuring Systems: Implications for Medical Decisions.

BACKGROUND: To identify an IgA deficiency, the availability of reliable IgA lower reference limits is essential, especially in pediatrics. In this study, we reported the results of an intercomparison study aimed to verify the status of standardization of IgA measurements using 11 commercially available measuring systems (MSs). METHODS: After confirming its commutability, the ERM-DA470k/IFCC reference material was used for the trueness evaluation of IgA MSs. Furthermore, the interassay agreement was verified using 18 patient pools. By combining the bias, if any, between the obtained mean of ERM-DA470k/IFCC and its target value and the mean imprecision of MSs with the uncertainty of respective calibrators, we also estimated the mean uncertainty (U) of IgA measurements on clinical samples. RESULTS: Although the majority of IgA MSs were sufficiently aligned with each other, the bias against the ERM-DA470k/IFCC target value was unacceptable in 55% of cases. This bias resulted in an excessive U of IgA measurement on clinical samples. Importantly, when the analysis focused on the lower IgA concentrations-typical of children-the situation worsened, with only 4 MSs showing good equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Although the harmonization among most commercially available IgA MSs is good, the implementation of traceability to higher order references is inadequate, especially at concentrations ≤0.7 g/L. This analytical background information needs to be considered carefully when defining traceable reference intervals in the pediatric population.

[An alternative proposal for managing morphological examination of urinary sediment and increasing its appropriateness].

BACKGROUND: The morphological examination of urinary sediment (MEUS) is traditionally associated with urinalysis (UA), with workload implications and the need for automation of its execution. METHODS: Considering MEUS as a test requiring specialized knowhow and skill for its execution, since 2005 in our laboratory it is performed for inpatients only upon specific request. Eleven years after, we have analyzed the long-term impact of this approach on the provided service. We evaluated results in the 2009-2016 period, in which our hospital did not undergo any change both in the number of beds and in the clinical case-mix. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2013 an average of 2264 MEUS and 10,204 UA per year were ordered, respectively, with an average ratio of 22.2%. Since 2014, a change on computerized order entry involving MEUS caused a further decrease of its requests (in average, 923 per year), which was not associated to a decrease in UA (in average, 9810 per year) (in average, MEUS/UA 9.4%). MEUS requests came mainly from Paediatrics (47.8%), Nephrology (20.9%) and Rheumatology (18.3%) wards. By filling a satisfaction survey, clinical wards evaluated the provided service as satisfactory, while highlighting some critical issues, mainly referred to preanalytical phase. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative proposal for managing MEUS presented in this paper markedly reduces the number of requests and increases their appropriateness. This is achieved without any negative impact on patient care.

Measurement uncertainty: Friend or foe?

The definition and enforcement of a reference measurement system, based on the implementation of metrological traceability of patients' results to higher order reference methods and materials, together with a clinically acceptable level of measurement uncertainty, are fundamental requirements to produce accurate and equivalent laboratory results. The uncertainty associated with each step of the traceability chain should be governed to obtain a final combined uncertainty on clinical samples fulfilling the requested performance specifications. It is important that end-users (i.e., clinical laboratory) may know and verify how in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers have implemented the traceability of their calibrators and estimated the corresponding uncertainty. However, full information about traceability and combined uncertainty of calibrators is currently very difficult to obtain. Laboratory professionals should investigate the need to reduce the uncertainty of the higher order metrological references and/or to increase the precision of commercial measuring systems. Accordingly, the measurement uncertainty should not be considered a parameter to be calculated by clinical laboratories just to fulfil the accreditation standards, but it must become a key quality indicator to describe both the performance of an IVD measuring system and the laboratory itself.

Progress and impact of enzyme measurement standardization.

International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) has established reference measurement procedures (RMPs) for the most popular enzymes. Manufacturers should assign values to commercial calibrators traceable to these RMPs to achieve equivalent results in clinical samples, independent of reagent kits, instruments, and laboratory where the measurement is carried out. The situation is, however, far from acceptable. Some manufacturers continue to market assays giving results that are not traceable to internationally accepted RMPs. Meanwhile, end-users often do not abandon assays with demonstrated insufficient quality. Of the enzyme measurements, creatine kinase (CK) is satisfactorily standardized and a substantial improvement in performance of marketed γ-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT) assays has been demonstrated. Conversely, aminotransferase measurements often exceed the desirable analytical performance because of the lack of pyridoxal-5-phosphate addition in the commercial reagents. Measurements of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and α-amylase (AMY) still show major disagreement, suggesting the need for improvement in implementing traceability to higher-order references. This is mainly the result of using assays with different analytical selectivities for these enzymes. The definition by laboratory professionals of the clinically acceptable measurement uncertainty for each enzyme together with the adoption by EQAS of commutable materials and use of an evaluation approach based on trueness represent the way forward for reaching standardization in clinical enzymology.

How to assess the quality of your analytical method?

Laboratory medicine is amongst the fastest growing fields in medicine, crucial in diagnosis, support of prevention and in the monitoring of disease for individual patients and for the evaluation of treatment for populations of patients. Therefore, high quality and safety in laboratory testing has a prominent role in high-quality healthcare. Applied knowledge and competencies of professionals in laboratory medicine increases the clinical value of laboratory results by decreasing laboratory errors, increasing appropriate utilization of tests, and increasing cost effectiveness. This collective paper provides insights into how to validate the laboratory assays and assess the quality of methods. It is a synopsis of the lectures at the 15th European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Continuing Postgraduate Course in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine entitled "How to assess the quality of your method?" (Zagreb, Croatia, 24-25 October 2015). The leading topics to be discussed include who, what and when to do in validation/verification of methods, verification of imprecision and bias, verification of reference intervals, verification of qualitative test procedures, verification of blood collection systems, comparability of results among methods and analytical systems, limit of detection, limit of quantification and limit of decision, how to assess the measurement uncertainty, the optimal use of Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assessment data, Six Sigma metrics, performance specifications, as well as biological variation. This article, which continues the annual tradition of collective papers from the EFLM continuing postgraduate courses in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, aims to provide further contributions by discussing the quality of laboratory methods and measurements and, at the same time, to offer continuing professional development to the attendees.

Performance criteria for combined uncertainty budget in the implementation of metrological traceability.

The measurement uncertainty budget should combine the uncertainty of higher order references, the uncertainty of commercial system calibration, the system imprecision and individual laboratory performance in terms of variability. Here we recommend that no more than one third of the total uncertainty budget, established by appropriate analytical performance specifications, is consumed by the uncertainty of references and approximately 50% of the total budget consumed by the manufacturer's calibration and value transfer protocol. The remaining 50% should be available for the commercial system imprecision (including the batch to batch variation of the reagents) and individual laboratory performance in order to fulfil the uncertainty goal. For commercial systems to work properly, in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers will need to take more responsibility and ensure the traceability of the combination of platform, reagents, calibrators and control materials for system alignment verification that only as such (as a whole) are certified ("CE marked") by the manufacturer itself in terms of traceability to the selected reference measurement system. Particularly, IVD manufacturers should report the combined (expanded) uncertainty associated with their calibrators when used in conjunction with other components of their analytical system (platform and reagents). This is more than what they are currently providing as traceability and uncertainty information.

Role and Responsibilities of Laboratory Medicine Specialists in the Verification OF Metrological Traceability of in vitro Medical Diagnostics.

To be accurate and equivalent, laboratory results should be traceable to higher-order references. Furthermore, their quality should fulfill acceptable measurement uncertainty as defined to fit the intended clinical use. With this aim, in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers should define a calibration hierarchy to assign traceable values to their system calibrators and to fulfill during this process uncertainty limits for calibrators, which should represent a proportion of the uncertainty budget allowed for clinical laboratory results. It is therefore important that, on one hand, the laboratory profession clearly defines the clinically acceptable uncertainty for relevant tests and, on the other hand, end-users may know and verify how manufacturers have implemented the traceability of their calibrators and estimated the corresponding uncertainty. Important tools for IVD traceability surveillance are quality control programmes through the daily verification by clinical laboratories that control materials of analytical systems are in the manufacturer's declared validation range [Internal Quality Control (IQC) component I] and the organization of External Quality Assessment Schemes meeting metrological criteria. In a separate way, clinical laboratories should also monitor the reliability of employed commercial systems through the IQC component II, devoted to estimation of the measurement uncertainty due to random effects, which includes analytical system imprecision together with individual laboratory performance in terms of variability.

Soluble transferrin receptor in complicated anemia.

Determination of serum soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) has been proposed to identify iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in patients affected by concurrent inflammatory disease that may spuriously increase ferritin concentration. The aim of this study was to critically review the available literature to assess the diagnostic efficacy of sTfR in complicated anemia. The criteria for study selection were: enrolment of patients with complicated anemia; bone marrow examination used as diagnostic gold standard for IDA; evaluation of sTfR vs. ferritin and binary data presentation. Six published studies met the criteria. However, the small size and wide heterogeneity of the studies did not allow us to conduct a meta-analysis. sTfR was overall more sensitive, even though it was evident that the ferritin sensitivity was influenced by selected cut-offs. Well-designed studies are still needed to define the added value, if any, of sTfR to ferritin for IDA detection in complicated anemia.

Evaluation of the impact of standardization process on the quality of serum creatinine determination in Italian laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Creatinine determination in serum is a key indicator of kidney glomerular function. A reference measurement system for its standardization is available and virtually all IVD manufacturers have aligned their assays to this system. In this study, we verified the impact of these standardization efforts on the results of an Italian EQAS involving about 430 laboratories. METHOD: We considered data obtained during 2006, 2010 and 2011 schemes of EQAS Prolarit for control materials with target values assigned by a traceable method (enzymatic assay calibrated against the NIST SRM 967). RESULTS: The results showed a good alignment at concentrations ~170µmol/L, with 2011 results - except for one method group - well inside the desirable bias (±4%). At higher concentrations, whereas the bias was small in 2010, for some groups using alkaline-picrate (AP) methods it became significantly negative in 2011. The performance seems to worsen when measuring physiologic concentrations, where a significant positive bias (up to ~20%) is shown by most of the AP-based analytical systems. With few exceptions, no evident improvement in individual assay bias was noted from pre- (2006) to post-standardization (2011) periods. The enzymatic method groups were the only always presenting an acceptable bias at all creatinine concentrations, also showing the lowest between-laboratory variability. CONCLUSION: Our data seem to indicate that the standardization efforts are still having effects lower than expected. Even taking into consideration that some of the bias may derive from non commutability problems, most of the current "standardized" AP-based methods, at the lower creatinine concentrations, seem to present accuracy problems. This inaccuracy can adversely impact the estimation of GFR by equations and the evaluation of kidney function in pediatrics.

Serum albumin: accuracy and clinical use.

Albumin is the major plasma protein and its determination is used for the prognostic assessment of several diseases. Clinical guidelines call for monitoring of serum albumin with specific target cut-offs that are independent of the assay used. This requires accurate and equivalent results among different commercially available methods (i.e., result standardization) through a consistent definition and application of a reference measurement system. This should be associated with the definition of measurement uncertainty goals based on medical relevance of serum albumin to make results reliable for patient management. In this paper, we show that, in the current situation, if one applies analytical goals for serum albumin measurement derived from its biologic variation, the uncertainty budget derived from each step of the albumin traceability chain is probably too high to fulfil established quality levels for albumin measurement and to guarantee the accuracy needed for clinical usefulness of the test. The situation is further worsened if non-specific colorimetric methods are used for albumin measurement as they represent an additional random source of uncertainty.

Soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) and sTfR/log ferritin index for the diagnosis of iron-deficiency anemia. A meta-analysis.

Determination of serum soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) is proposed to distinguish between iron-deficiency anemia and anemia of chronic disease. Here we conducted a meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of sTfR and sTfR/log ferritin index. The meta-analysis included 18 sTfR and 10 sTfR index studies. Three sTfR index studies were, however, eliminated as outliers. The odds ratio was significant for both sTfR (22.9, 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6-55.0) and sTfR index (9.5, 95% CI, 5.0-18.1) in a heterogeneous set of studies. Meta-analysis for sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) was performed only in a subset of 10 sTfR studies. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative LRs were 86%, 75%, 3.85, and 0.19, respectively, with an area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.912 (standard error, 0.039). Additional studies are needed to define the overall diagnostic accuracy of sTfR.