RESUMO
Background: The objective of the present study was to examine the evolution of the analytical performance specifications (APS) used in External Quality Assurance (EQA) schemes, as well as the efficacy of a category 1 EQA scheme in monitoring the harmonization of clinical laboratory results in Spain. Methods: A review of the literature on the types of quality specifications used in schemes in other countries and their evolution was performed. In addition, a comparative analysis of the potential impact that different APS from eight countries had on clinical decision-making was made based on three measurands: sodium, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). Results: Harmonization of analytical methods was demonstrated by assessing whether average results deviated from the certified reference value of control materials within the APS derived from biological variation (BV). The APS used in EQA have evolved from state-of-the-art models to BV. Poor clinical decision-making would occur if the results accepted by some APS were applied. Conclusions: In Spain, only 2 of the 18 measurands studied are considered to be well harmonized. Closer collaboration between laboratories and analytical system providers would be required to resolve discrepancies.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Endogenous antibodies (EA) may interfere with immunoassays, causing erroneous results for hormone analyses. As (in most cases) this interference arises from the assay format and most immunoassays, even from different manufacturers, are constructed in a similar way, it is possible for a single type of EA to interfere with different immunoassays. Here we describe the case of a patient whose serum sample contains EA that interfere several hormones tests. We also discuss the strategies deployed to detect interference. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Over a period of four years, a 30-year-old man was subjected to a plethora of laboratory and imaging diagnostic procedures as a consequence of elevated hormone results, mainly of pituitary origin, which did not correlate with the overall clinical picture. RESULTS: Once analytical interference was suspected, the best laboratory approaches to investigate it were sample reanalysis on an alternative platform and sample incubation with antibody blocking tubes. Construction of an in-house 'nonsense' sandwich assay was also a valuable strategy to confirm interference. In contrast, serial sample dilutions were of no value in our case, while polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation gave inconclusive results, probably due to the use of inappropriate PEG concentrations for several of the tests assayed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and laboratorians must be aware of the drawbacks of immunometric assays, and alert to the possibility of EA interference when results do not fit the clinical pattern.