Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences.

Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests. Awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests; therefore awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. • Clinical Laboratory tests should be performed prior to radiological imaging with contrast media or alternatively, blood or urine collection should be delayed, depending on kidney function.

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.

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.

Non-HDL Cholesterol or apoB: Which to Prefer as a Target for the Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Guidelines propose using non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein (apo) B as a secondary treatment target to reduce residual cardiovascular risk of LDL-targeted therapies. This review summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of using apoB compared with non-HDL cholesterol. RECENT FINDINGS: Non-HDL cholesterol, calculated as total-HDL cholesterol, includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, an additional risk factor independent of LDL cholesterol. ApoB is a direct measure of circulating numbers of atherogenic lipoproteins, and its measurement can be standardized across laboratories worldwide. Discordance analysis of non-HDL cholesterol versus apoB demonstrates that apoB is the more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk. Baseline and on-treatment apoB can identify elevated numbers of small cholesterol-depleted LDL particles that are not reflected by LDL and non-HDL cholesterol. ApoB is superior to non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (175-880 mg/dL), diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome, or very low LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL. When apoB is not available, non-HDL cholesterol should be used to supplement LDLC.

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.

Which Lipids Should Be Analyzed for Diagnostic Workup and Follow-up of Patients with Hyperlipidemias?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and discuss the clinical use of lipid and apolipoprotein tests in the settings of diagnosis and therapeutic follow-up of hyperlipidemia. RECENT FINDINGS: The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently produced recommendations on the measurement of atherogenic lipoproteins, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of analytical and clinical performances of the tests. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and calculated non-HDL cholesterol (= LDL + remnant cholesterol) constitute the primary lipid panel for hyperlipidemia diagnosis and cardiovascular risk estimation. LDL cholesterol is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. Non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B should be used as secondary therapeutic target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, 2-10 mmol/l (175-880 mg/dl). Lipoprotein (a) is included in LDL cholesterol and should be measured at least once in all patients at cardiovascular risk, including to explain poor response to statin treatment.

Could accreditation bodies facilitate the implementation of medical guidelines in laboratories?

Several studies have shown that recommendations related to how laboratory testing should be performed and results interpreted are limited in medical guidelines and that the uptake and implementation of the recommendations that are available need improvement. The EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conducted a survey amongst the national societies for clinical chemistry in Europe regarding development of laboratory-related guidelines. The results showed that most countries have guidelines that are specifically related to laboratory testing; however, not all countries have a formal procedure for accepting such guidelines and few countries have guideline committees. Based on this, the EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conclude that there is still room for improvement regarding these processes in Europe and raise the question if the accreditation bodies could be a facilitator for an improvement.

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).

Why are clinical practice guidelines not followed?

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of "normal practice" and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.

Proteolysis is a confounding factor in the interpretation of faecal calprotectin.

BACKGROUND: Calprotectin is a 36 kDa calcium and zinc binding protein. An increased level of calprotectin points towards inflammatory bowel disease. However, the biomarker calprotectin shows 14 potential cleavages sites for trypsin. Next to trypsin, also the presence of its inhibitor α1-antitrypsin after a gastrointestinal bleeding may affect calprotectin testing. In this study, effects of trypsin and α1-antitrypsin as potential confounders for faecal calprotectin testing are investigated. METHODS: An in vitro model was created. As calprotectin source, leukocytes were isolated and subsequently lysed (1% Triton X-100) and diluted in faecal matrix. Trypsin digestion was carried out by adding trypsin. Incubation occurred for 24 h or 48 h (37 °C). To study the influence of α1-antitrypsin on trypsin, the same experiment was repeated after adding serum containing α1-antitrypsin. RESULTS: In vitro experiments enabled monitoring of the faecal calprotectin digestion, leading to loss of immunoreactivity. Trypsin activity was a potential confounder in the interpretation of calprotectin, in particular for proximal lesions, where exposure of calprotectin to trypsin is prolonged. Relative calprotectin loss was proportional to the amount of trypsin. Decrease of calprotectin was more pronounced after 48 h of incubation in comparison to 24 h of incubation. Analogue experiments also showed stable calprotectin values after adding α1-antitrypsin. CONCLUSIONS: Transit time, trypsin activity and addition of blood as a source of α1-antitrypsin may be regarded as potential confounders in the interpretation of calprotectin results. Age-related cut-off values depending on the anatomical localisation of the lesions could improve the diagnostic efficiency of calprotectin testing.

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.

Standardization of Apolipoprotein B, LDL-Cholesterol, and Non-HDL-Cholesterol.

Concern continues about whether the measurement of apolipoprotein B (apoB) is adequately standardized, and therefore, whether apoB should be applied widely in clinical care. This concern is misplaced. Our objective is to explain why and what the term "standardization" means. To produce clinically valid results, a test must accurately, precisely, and selectively measure the marker of interest. That is, it must be standardized. Accuracy refers to how closely the result obtained with 1 method corresponds to the result obtained with the standard method, precision to how reproducible the result is on repeated testing, and selectivity to how susceptible the method is to error by inclusion of other classes of lipoprotein particles. Multiple expert groups have determined that the measurement of apoB is adequately standardized for clinical care, and that apoB can be measured inexpensively, using widely available automated methods, more accurately, precisely, and selectively than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. ApoB is a standard superior to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol because it is a defined molecule, whereas the cholesterol markers are the mass of cholesterol within lipoprotein particles defined by their density, not by their molecular structure. Nevertheless, the standardization of apoB is being further improved by the application of mass spectrophotometric methods, whereas the limitations in the standardization and, therefore, the accurate, precise, and selective measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are unlikely to be overcome. We submit that greater accuracy, precision, and selectivity in measurement is a decisive advantage for apoB in the modern era of intensive lipid-lowering therapies.

Laboratory approaches for predicting and managing the risk of cardiovascular disease: postanalytical opportunities of lipid and lipoprotein testing.

Abstract Lipoprotein-related risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) can be adequately predicted in subjects with elevated total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL-)cholesterol using the available guidelines. However, individuals with dyslipidemia can have normal total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations. Many statin-treated patients remain at high residual risk of CVD despite achieving LDL goals. The small dense LDL phenotype, frequently presenting with hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL-)cholesterol (lipid triad), may contribute to failure to identify and treat high-risk individuals. Therefore, calculated non-HDL-cholesterol is recommended as secondary therapeutic target to LDL-cholesterol in patients with hypertriglyceridemia and mixed dyslipidemia. On-treatment apolipoprotein B adds prognostic information to LDL- and non-HDL-cholesterol by indicating the total number of atherogenic lipoproteins, regardless of their cholesterol content. Risk may be higher than indicated in the risk estimation systems in additional subjects with elevated lipoprotein(a) and homocysteine concentrations. To improve the (post-)post-analytical phase of lipid tests, aiming for maximal health outcome effectiveness of test interpretation and utilization, laboratory professionals should deliver clinical added value services by providing readily interpreted and guideline-adjusted test reports, interpretative commenting, proactive reflex testing or recommending additional tests, and joining multidisciplinary cooperations in guideline development and cost/benefit studies.

Concordance of apolipoprotein B concentration with the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and Sampson formulas for calculating LDL cholesterol.

INTRODUCTION: Two new formulas, the Martin-Hopkins and the Sampson formula, were recently developed to overcome shortcomings of the Friedewald formula for calculating LDL-cholesterol. We aimed to compare the concordance of the two formulas with apolipoprotein B (apoB), a surrogate marker of the number of LDL particles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a study of serum lipid data of 1179 patients who consulted the AZ St-Jan Hospital Bruges for cardiovascular risk assessment, the correlation and concordance of the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas with apoB concentration, measured by immunonephelometry, were determined and compared. RESULTS: The Martin-Hopkins formula showed significantly higher correlation coefficient than the Friedewald formula with apoB in the entire dataset and in patients with low LDL-cholesterol < 1.8 mmol/L. Both Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas yielded > 70% concordance of LDL-cholesterol with regard to treatment group classification based on population-equivalent thresholds of apoB in hypertriglyceridemic patients (2-4.5 mmol/L), with the highest concordance (75.6%) obtained using Martin-Hopkins formula vs. 60.5% with Friedewald formula. CONCLUSION: The Martin-Hopkins (and, to a lesser extent, Sampson) formula is more closely associated with the number of LDL particles than Friedewald formula. This, in combination with literature evidence of lesser accuracy of the Friedewald formula, is an argument to switch from Friedewald to a modified, improved formula.

Evaluation of standard and advanced preprocessing methods for the univariate analysis of blood serum 1H-NMR spectra.

Proton nuclear magnetic resonance ((1)H-NMR)-based metabolomics enables the high-resolution and high-throughput assessment of a broad spectrum of metabolites in biofluids. Despite the straightforward character of the experimental methodology, the analysis of spectral profiles is rather complex, particularly due to the requirement of numerous data preprocessing steps. Here, we evaluate how several of the most common preprocessing procedures affect the subsequent univariate analyses of blood serum spectra, with a particular focus on how the standard methods perform compared to more advanced examples. Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill 1D (1)H spectra were obtained for 240 serum samples from healthy subjects of the Asklepios study. We studied the impact of different preprocessing steps--integral (standard method) and probabilistic quotient normalization; no, equidistant (standard), and adaptive-intelligent binning; mean (standard) and maximum bin intensity data summation--on the resonance intensities of three different types of metabolites: triglycerides, glucose, and creatinine. The effects were evaluated by correlating the differently preprocessed NMR data with the independently measured metabolite concentrations. The analyses revealed that the standard methods performed inferiorly and that a combination of probabilistic quotient normalization after adaptive-intelligent binning and maximum intensity variable definition yielded the best overall results (triglycerides, R = 0.98; glucose, R = 0.76; creatinine, R = 0.70). Therefore, at least in the case of serum metabolomics, these or equivalent methods should be preferred above the standard preprocessing methods, particularly for univariate analyses. Additional optimization of the normalization procedure might further improve the analyses.

Systemic telomere length and preclinical atherosclerosis: the Asklepios Study.

AIMS: Peripheral blood leucocyte (PBL) telomere length (TL) is a systemic ageing biomarker and has been proposed to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We aimed at providing an explanation for this association by the evaluation of the biomarker value of PBL-TL in preclinical atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Peripheral blood leucocyte telomere length was assessed by telomere restriction fragment analysis in 2509 volunteers free from established CVD, aged approximately 35-55 years old, from the Asklepios Study cohort. Intima-media thickness (IMT) and plaque presence were determined by ultrasonography in both left and right carotid and femoral arteries. Peripheral blood leucocyte telomere length was not a significant independent determinant of IMT (P > 0.3) or plaque presence (P > 0.05), in either artery or either sex. In women but not in men, PBL-TL was a weak determinant of combined (carotid or femoral) plaque presence, adjusted for other risk factors (women: P = 0.03, men: P > 0.4). However, even in women presenting plaques, PBL-TL was still longer than in men. CONCLUSION: Since systemic TL is not a substantial underlying determinant of preclinical atherosclerosis, the association between CVD and TL cannot be explained by the fact that subjects with shorter inherited TL are predisposed to atherosclerosis.