APS calculator: a data-driven tool for setting outcome-based analytical performance specifications for measurement uncertainty using specific clinical requirements and population data.

OBJECTIVES: According to ISO 15189:2022, analytical performance specifications (APS) should relate to intended clinical use and impact on patient care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web application for laboratory professionals to calculate APS based on a simulation of the impact of measurement uncertainty (MU) on the outcome using the chosen decision limits, agreement thresholds, and data of the population of interest. METHODS: We developed the "APS Calculator" allowing users to upload and select data of concern, specify decision limits and agreement thresholds, and conduct simulations to determine APS for MU. The simulation involved categorizing original measurand concentrations, generating measured (simulated) results by introducing different degrees of MU, and recategorizing measured concentrations based on clinical decision limits and acceptable clinical misclassification rates. The agreements between original and simulated result categories were assessed, and values that met or exceeded user-specified agreement thresholds that set goals for the between-category agreement were considered acceptable. The application generates contour plots of agreement rates and corresponding MU values. We tested the application using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, with decision limits from relevant guidelines. RESULTS: We determined APS for MU of six measurands (blood total hemoglobin, plasma fasting glucose, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total folate) to demonstrate the potential of the application to generate APS. CONCLUSIONS: The developed data-driven web application offers a flexible tool for laboratory professionals to calculate APS for MU using their chosen decision limits and agreement thresholds, and the data of the population of interest.

ISO 15189 is a sufficient instrument to guarantee high-quality manufacture of laboratory developed tests for in-house-use conform requirements of the European In-Vitro-Diagnostics Regulation.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation.

Clinicians trust medical laboratories to provide reliable results on which they rely for clinical decisions. Laboratories fulfil their responsibility for accurate and consistent results by utilizing an arsenal of approaches, ranging from validation and verification experiments to daily quality control procedures. All these procedures verify, on different moments, that the results of a certain examination procedure have analytical performance characteristics (APC) that meet analytical performance specifications (APS) set for a particular intended use. The APC can in part be determined by estimating the measurement uncertainty component under conditions of within-laboratory precision (uRw), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence uRw is the momentary significant bias caused by shifts in reagent and/or calibrator lots, which, when accepted or unnoticed, become a factor of the APC. In this paper, we postulate a model for allocating a part of allowable uRw to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots.

Validation and verification of examination procedures in medical laboratories: opinion of the EFLM Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO) on dealing with ISO 15189:2012 demands for method verification and validation.

This paper reflects the opinion of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO). It aims to provide guidance for drawing up local/national documents about validation and verification of laboratory methods. We demonstrate how risk evaluation can be used to optimize laboratory policies to meet intended use requirements as well as requirements of standards. This is translated in a number of recommendations on how to introduce risk evaluation in various stages of the implementation of new methods ultimately covering the whole process cycle.

Documenting metrological traceability as intended by ISO 15189:2012: A consensus statement about the practice of the implementation and auditing of this norm element.

ISO15189:2012 requires medical laboratories to document metrological traceability of their results. While the ISO17511:2003 standard on metrological traceability in laboratory medicine requires the use of the highest available level in the traceability chain, it recognizes that for many measurands there is no reference above the manufacturer's selected measurement procedure and the manufacturer's working calibrator. Some immunoassays, although they intend to measure the same quantity and may even refer to the same reference material, unfortunately produce different results because of differences in analytical selectivity as manufacturers select different epitopes and antibodies for the same analyte. In other cases, the cause is the use of reference materials, which are not commutable. The uncertainty associated with the result is another important aspect in metrological traceability implementation. As the measurement uncertainty on the clinical samples is influenced by the uncertainty of all steps higher in the traceability chain, laboratories should be provided with adequate and appropriate information on the uncertainty of the value assignment to the commercial calibrators that they use. Although the between-lot variation in value assignment will manifest itself as part of the long-term imprecision as estimated by the end-user, information on worst-case to be expected lot-lot variation has to be communicated to the end-user by the IVD provider. When laboratories use ancillary equipment that potentially could have a critical contribution to the reported results, such equipment needs verification of its proper calibration and criticality to the result uncertainty could be assessed by an approach based on risk analysis, which is a key element of ISO15189:2012 anyway. This paper discusses how the requirement for metrological traceability as stated in ISO15189 should be met by the medical laboratory and how this should be assessed by accreditation bodies.

Clinical decision limits as criteria for setting analytical performance specifications for laboratory tests.

BACKGROUND: The biological (CVI), preanalytical (CVPRE), and analytical variation (CVA) are inherent to clinical laboratory testing and consequently, interpretation of clinical test results. METHODS: The sum of the CVI, CVPRE, and CVA, called diagnostic variation (CVD), was used to derive clinically acceptable analytical performance specifications (CAAPS) for clinical chemistry measurands. The reference change concept was applied to clinically significant differences (CD) between two measurements, with the formula CD = z*√2* CVD. CD for six measurands were sought from international guidelines. The CAAPS were calculated by subtracting variances of CVI and CVPRE from CVD. Modified formulae were applied to consider statistical power (1-ß) and repeated measurements. RESULTS: The obtained CAAPS were 44.9% for urine albumin, 0.6% for plasma sodium, 22.9% for plasma pancreatic amylase, and 8.0% for plasma creatinine (z = 3, α = 2.5%, 1-ß = 85%). For blood HbA1c and plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, replicate measurements were necessary to reach CAAPS for patient monitoring. The derived CAAPS were compared with analytical performance specifications, APS, based on biological variation. CONCLUSIONS: The CAAPS models pose a new tool for assessing APS in a clinical laboratory. Their usability depends on the relevance of CD limits, required statistical power and the feasibility of repeated measurements.

Improving the laboratory result release process in the light of ISO 15189:2012 standard.

The ISO 15189:2012 standard section 5.9.1 requires laboratories to review results before release, considering quality control, previous results, and clinical information, if any, and to issue documented procedures about it. While laboratory result reporting is generally regarded as part of the post-analytical phase, the result release process requires a general view of the total examination process. Reviewing test results may follow with troubleshooting and test repetition, including reanalyzing an individual sample or resampling. A systematic understanding of the result release may help laboratory professionals carry out appropriate test repetition and ensure the plausibility of laboratory results. In this paper, we addressed the crucial steps in the result release process, including evaluation of sample quality, critical result notification, result reporting, and recommendations for the management of the result release, considering quality control alerts, instrument flags, warning messages, and interference indexes. Error detection tools and plausibility checks mentioned in the present paper can support the daily practice of results release.

Analytical performance of the Iris iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the Iris iQ200 Automated Urine Microscopy Analyzer to find out if the instrument performed better than traditional visual bright field microscopy in detecting basic urine particles, as assessed against reference phase contrast microscopy. METHODS: The HUSLAB quality system was followed in planning and completing the evaluation process. The iQ200 instrument results from 167 mid-stream, uncentrifuged urine specimens were compared to those obtained with phase contrast reference microscopy, and to those with routine bright field microscopy. Linearity, carry-over and precision were tested according to well-established protocols. RESULTS: The iQ200 counted erythrocytes (RBC) at r=0.894 (R(2)=0.799) with Automated Particle Recognition (APR) software alone and at r=0.948 (R(2)=0.898) after re-classification. The performance for leukocytes (WBC) was r=0.885 with APR and r=0.978 after re-classification. The correlations of counting after user re-classification were r=0.927 for squamous epithelial cells (SQEP), r=0.856 for casts, and r=0.706 for non-squamous epithelial cells. The iQ200 showed good linearity and precision and no carry-over was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The Iris iQ200 was capable to count reliably RBC, WBC, and SQEP cells and to identify a fraction of bacteria and renal elements. Counting results equalled or exceeded that of routine bright field microscopy or earlier flow cytometric technology. The instrument eliminates manual sample preparation but requires a well-trained technologist for re-grouping of findings.

Evaluation of uncertainty of measurement in routine clinical chemistry--applications to determination of the substance concentration of calcium and glucose in serum.

We studied the uncertainty of measurement for the calcium and glucose (amount of) substance concentrations in serum. The evaluation follows a four-step procedure, which complies with the ISO document Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). The applications were chosen to represent commonly used measuring systems in medical laboratories. The uncertainty components are quantified using observations of the measuring system, and information from calibration certificates, instrument specifications and literature. The evaluation focuses on the measurement step but empirical terms are used to illustrate how the pre-analytical phase and patient-related issues can be accounted for. The software GUM Workbench was used to facilitate calculations and to visualize the importance of each uncertainty component. The combined standard uncertainties (u(c)) for the measurands were < or =2% including the pre-analytical uncertainty sources. The patient-related source is discussed in relation to clinician's diagnosis and decision-making. The evaluation, as carried out here for calcium and glucose substance concentration measurements, can easily be applied to many other measurands in clinical chemistry. This work emphasizes that the internal quality control can provide much of the information needed in the uncertainty evaluation, and that external quality assessment (EQA) schemes are important in the control of the uncertainty evaluated by the individual laboratories. Due to statistical and metrological limitations routine EQA schemes should themselves not be used as a means of uncertainty evaluation.