H2FPEF Scores Are Increased in Patients with NASH Cirrhosis and Are Associated with Post-liver Transplant Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cirrhosis are at risk for cardiac complications such as heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) due to left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD). The H2FPEF score is a predictive model used to identify patients with HFpEF. Our primary aim was to assess the H2FPEF score in patients with cirrhosis and determine its potential to identify patients at risk for heart failure after liver transplant. METHODS: This was a cohort study of patients undergoing liver transplant for cirrhosis from January 2010 and October 2018 who had a pre-transplant transthoracic echocardiogram. RESULTS: 166 cirrhosis subjects were included in the study. The majority were men (65%) and Caucasian (85%); NASH was the most common cause of cirrhosis (41%) followed by alcohol (34%). The median H2FPEF score was 2.0 (1.0-4.0). Patients with NASH cirrhosis had higher H2FPEF scores (3.22, 2.79-3.64) than those with alcohol induced cirrhosis (1.89, 1.5-2.29, p < 0.001) and other causes of cirrhosis (1.73, 1.28-2.18, p < 0.001). All subjects with a H2FPEF score > 6 had NASH cirrhosis. There was no association between the H2FPEF scores and measures of severity of liver disease (bilirubin, INR, or MELD score). Patients with heart failure after liver transplant had higher H2FPEF scores than those without heart failure (4.0, 3.1-4.9 vs. 2.3, 2.1-2.6, respectively; p = 0.015), but the score did not predict post-transplant mortality. CONCLUSION: H2FPEF scores are higher in cirrhosis patients with NASH and appear to be associated with post-transplant heart failure, but not death.

Risk assessment, surveillance, and nonpharmaceutical prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: results of a multicentric survey among the German-speaking radiation oncology community.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. RESULTS: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. CONCLUSION: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.

Real-World Primary Care Data Comparing ALT and FIB-4 in Predicting Future Severe Liver Disease Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) has long provided a cue for chronic liver disease (CLD) diagnostic evaluation, but the Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4), a serologic score used for predicting advanced fibrosis risk in CLD, may provide an alternative signal. OBJECTIVE: Compare the predictive performance of FIB-4 with ALT for severe liver disease (SLD) events while adjusting for potential confounders. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of primary care electronic health record data from 2012 to 2021. PATIENTS: Adult primary care patients with at least two sets of ALT and other lab values necessary for calculating two unique FIB-4 scores, excluding those patients with an SLD prior to their index FIB-4 value. MAIN MEASURES: The occurrence of an SLD event, a composite of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplantation, was the outcome of interest. Categories of ALT elevation and FIB-4 advanced fibrosis risk were the primary predictor variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the association of FIB-4 and ALT with SLD, and the areas under the curve (AUC) for each model were compared. KEY RESULTS: The cohort of 20,828 patients included 14% with an abnormal index ALT (≥40 IU/L) and 8% with a high-risk index FIB-4 (≥2.67). During the study period, 667 (3%) patients suffered an SLD event. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression models demonstrated an association between high-risk FIB-4 (OR 19.34; 95%CI 15.50-24.13), persistently high-risk FIB-4 (OR 23.85; 95%CI 18.24-31.17), abnormal ALT (OR 7.07; 95%CI 5.81-8.59), and persistently abnormal ALT (OR 7.58; 95%CI 5.97-9.62) with SLD outcomes. The AUC of the index FIB-4 (0.847, p < 0.001) and combined FIB-4 (0.849, p < 0.001) adjusted models exceeded the index ALT adjusted model (0.815). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk FIB-4 scores demonstrated superior performance compared to abnormal ALT in predicting future SLD outcomes.

FIB-4 and incident severe liver outcomes in patients with undiagnosed chronic liver disease: A Fine-Gray competing risk analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) can reliably assess fibrosis risk in patients with chronic liver disease, and advanced fibrosis is associated with severe liver disease (SLD) outcomes. However, CLD is underdiagnosed in primary care. We examined the association between FIB-4 risk strata and the incidence of SLD preceding a CLD diagnosis while considering incident CLD diagnoses as competing risks. METHODS: Using primary care clinic data between 2007 and 2018, we identified patients with two FIB-4 scores and no liver disease diagnoses preceding the index FIB-4. Patients were followed from index FIB-4 until an incident SLD (a composite of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma or liver transplantation), CLD or were censored. Hazard ratios were computed using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: Of 20 556 patients, there were 54.8% in the low, 34.8% in the indeterminate, 6.6% in the high and 3.8% in the persistently high-risk FIB-4 strata. During a mean 8.2 years of follow-up, 837 (4.1%) patients experienced an SLD outcome and 11.5% of the sample received a CLD diagnosis. Of patients with an SLD event, 49% received no preceding CLD diagnosis. In the adjusted Fine-Gray model, the indeterminate (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71), high (HR 4.65, 95% CI 3.76-5.76) and persistently high-risk (HR 7.60, 95% CI 6.04-9.57) FIB-4 risk strata were associated with a higher incidence of SLD compared to the low-risk stratum. CONCLUSIONS: FIB-4 scores with indeterminate- and high-risk values are associated with an increased incidence of SLD in primary care patients without known CLD.

Outcome assessment of intraoperative radiotherapy for brain metastases: results of a prospective observational study with comparative matched-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an emerging alternative to adjuvant stereotactic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following resection of brain metastases (BM). Advantages of IORT include an instant prevention of tumor regrowth, optimized dose-sparing of adjacent healthy brain tissue and immediate completion of BM treatment, allowing an earlier admission to subsequent systemic treatments. However, prospective outcome data are limited. We sought to assess long-term outcome of IORT in comparison to EBRT. METHODS: A total of 35 consecutive patients, prospectively recruited within a study registry, who received IORT following BM resection at a single neuro-oncological center were evaluated for radiation necrosis (RN) incidence rates, local control rates (LCR), distant brain progression (DBP) and overall survival (OS) as long-term outcome parameters. The 1 year-estimated OS and survival rates were compared in a balanced comparative matched-pair analysis to those of our institutional database, encompassing 388 consecutive patients who underwent adjuvant EBRT after BM resection. RESULTS: The median IORT dose was 30 Gy prescribed to the applicator surface. A 2.9% RN rate was observed. The estimated 1 year-LCR was 97.1% and the 1 year-DBP-free survival 73.5%. Median time to DBP was 6.4 (range 1.7-24) months in the subgroup of patients experiencing intracerebral progression. The median OS was 17.5 (0.5-not reached) months with a 1 year-survival rate of 61.3%, which did not not significantly differ from the comparative cohort (p = 0.55 and p = 0.82, respectively). CONCLUSION: IORT is a safe and effective fast-track approach following BM resection, with comparable long-term outcomes as adjuvant EBRT.

Intraoperative or postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: time to systemic treatment onset and other patient-relevant outcomes.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has become a viable treatment option for resectable brain metastases (BMs). As data on local control and radiation necrosis rates are maturing, we focus on meaningful secondary endpoints such as time to next treatment (TTNT), duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment, and in-hospital time. METHODS: Patients prospectively recruited within an IORT study registry between November 2020 and June 2023 were compared with consecutive patients receiving adjuvant stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of the resection cavity within the same time frame. TTNT was defined as the number of days between BM resection and start of the next extracranial oncological therapy (systemic treatment, surgery, or radiotherapy) for each of the groups. RESULTS: Of 95 BM patients screened, IORT was feasible in 84 cases (88%) and ultimately performed in 64 (67%). The control collective consisted of 53 SRT patients. There were no relevant differences in clinical baseline features. Mean TTNT (range) was 36 (9 - 94) days for IORT patients versus 52 (11 - 126) days for SRT patients (p = 0.01). Mean duration of postoperative corticosteroid treatment was similar (8 days; p = 0.83), as was mean postoperative in-hospital time (11 versus 12 days; p = 0.97). Mean total in-hospital time for BM treatment (in- and out-patient days) was 11 days for IORT versus 19 days for SRT patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IORT for BMs results in faster completion of interdisciplinary treatment when compared to adjuvant SRT, without increasing corticosteroid intake or prolonging in-hospital times. A randomised phase III trial will determine the clinical effects of shorter TTNT.

FIB-4 as a Time-varying Covariate and Its Association With Severe Liver Disease in Primary Care: A Time-dependent Cox Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) has demonstrated a strong association with severe liver disease (SLD) outcomes in primary care, but previous studies have only evaluated this relationship using 1 or 2 FIB-4 scores. In this study, we determined the association of FIB-4 as a time-varying covariate with SLD risk using time-dependent Cox regression models. STUDY: This retrospective cohort study included primary care patients with at least 2 FIB-4 scores between 2012 and 2021. The outcome was the occurrence of an SLD event, a composite of cirrhosis, complications of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplantation. The primary predictor was FIB-4 advanced fibrosis risk, categorized as low-(<1.3), indeterminate-(1.3≤FIB to 4<2.67), and high-risk (≥2.67). FIB-4 scores were calculated and the index, last, and maximum FIB-4s were identified. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% CI with adjustment for potentially confounding covariates. RESULTS: In the cohort, 20,828 patients had a median of 5 (IQR: 3 to 11) FIB-4 scores each and 3% (n=667) suffered an SLD outcome during follow-up. Maximum FIB-4 scores were indeterminate-risk for 34% (7149) and high-risk for 24% (4971) of the sample, and 32% (6692) of patients had an increase in fibrosis risk category compared with their index value. The adjusted Cox regression model demonstrated an association between indeterminate- (hazard ratio 3.21; 95% CI 2.33-4.42) and high-risk (hazard ratio 20.36; 95% CI 15.03-27.57) FIB-4 scores with SLD outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple FIB-4 values per patient are accessible in primary care, FIB-4 fibrosis risk assessments change over time, and high-risk FIB-4 scores (≥2.67) are strongly associated with severe liver disease outcomes when accounting for FIB-4 as a time-varying variable.

Identifying Patients at Risk for Fibrosis in a Primary Care NAFLD Cohort.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Using natural language processing to create a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cohort in primary care, we assessed advanced fibrosis risk with the Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) and evaluated risk score agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study of adults with radiographic evidence of hepatic steatosis, we calculated patient-level FIB-4 and NFS scores and categorized them by fibrosis risk. Risk category and risk score agreement was analyzed using weighted κ, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis. A multinomial logistic regression model evaluated associations between clinical variables and discrepant FIB-4 and NFS results. RESULTS: Of the 767 patient cohorts, 71% had a FIB-4 or NFS score in the indeterminate-risk or high-risk category for fibrosis. Risk categories disagreed in 43%, and scores would have resulted in different clinical decisions in 30% of the sample. The weighted κ statistic for risk category agreement was 0.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.46] and the Pearson correlation coefficient for log FIB-4 and NFS was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.70). The multinomial logistic regression analysis identified black race (odds ratio=2.64, 95% CI: 1.84-3.78) and hemoglobin A1c (odds ratio=1.37, 95% CI: 1.23-1.52) with higher odds of having an NFS risk category exceeding FIB-4. CONCLUSIONS: In a primary care NAFLD cohort, many patients had elevated FIB-4 and NFS risk scores and these risk categories were often in disagreement. The choice between FIB-4 and NFS for fibrosis risk assessment can impact clinical decision-making and may contribute to disparities of care.

Prognostic Value of the 13 C-Methacetin Breath Test in Adults with Acute Liver Failure and Non-acetaminophen Acute Liver Injury.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 13 C-methacetin breath test (MBT) is a noninvasive, quantitative hepatic metabolic function test. The aim of this prospective, multicenter study was to determine the utility of initial and serial 13 C-MBT in predicting 21-day outcomes in adults with acute liver failure (ALF) and non-acetaminophen acute liver injury (ALI). APPROACH AND RESULTS: The 13 C-MBT BreathID device (Exalenz Biosciences, Ltd.) provided the percent dose recovery (PDR) for a duration of 60 minutes after administration of 13 C-methacetin solution as the change in exhaled 13 CO2 /12 CO2 compared with pre-ingestion ratio on study days 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Results were correlated with 21-day transplant-free survival and other prognostic indices. A total of 280 subjects were screened for enrollment between May 2016 and August 2019. Median age of the 62 enrolled patients with adequate data was 43 years, 79% were Caucasian, 76% had ALF with the remaining 24% having ALI. The mean PDR peak on day 1 or day 2 was significantly lower in nonsurvivors compared with transplant-free survivors (2.3%/hour vs. 9.1%/hour; P < 0.0001). In addition, serial PDR peaks were consistently lower in nonsurvivors versus survivors (P < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the 13 C-MBT in the combined cohort was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97) and higher than that provided by King's College (AUROC = 0.70) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (AUROC = 0.83). The 13 C-MBT was well tolerated with only two gastrointestinal adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: The 13 C-MBT is a promising tool to estimate the likelihood of hepatic recovery in patients with ALF and ALI. Use of the PDR peak data from the 13 C-MBT point-of-care test may assist with medical decision making and help avoid unnecessary transplantation in critically ill patients with ALF and ALI.

Coagulopathy, Bleeding Events, and Outcome According to Rotational Thromboelastometry in Patients With Acute Liver Injury/Failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with acute liver injury or failure (ALI/ALF) experience bleeding complications uncommonly despite an abnormal hemostatic profile. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), which assesses clot formation in whole blood, was used to determine the nature of abnormal hemostasis and whether it contributes to bleeding events, illness severity, or survival. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were recruited from sites of the ALF Study Group. Blood collected daily for up to 5 days was analyzed using ROTEM delta devices. Consistent with standard laboratory evidence of hypocoagulability (median international normalized ratio = 2.9 and platelet count = 144 × 109 /L), patients frequently exhibited ROTEM parameters outside the normal range (73% and 62% had abnormalities in clot formation from extrinsic and intrinsic clotting cascades, respectively); however, measures of clot stability were generally normal. Eighteen patients (9%) experienced bleeding events, in whom clot initiation, assembly, and firmness were more severely deranged than patients without bleeding. Abnormal ROTEM parameters were more frequently observed in patients with non-acetaminophen ALI/ALF than those with acetaminophen ALI/ALF (clot initiation [P < 0.001], assembly [P = 0.02], firmness at 10 minutes [P = 0.05], and maximal firmness [P = 0.06]). Patients with more severe systemic complications (high-grade hepatic encephalopathy and need for renal replacement therapy) also had a higher incidence of abnormal ROTEM parameters. Finally, more hypocoagulable ROTEM parameters (clot initiation (P = 0.005), stiffness at 10 minutes (P = 0.05), and maximal stiffness by fibrin assembly (P = 0.004)) were observed in patients who died or underwent liver transplantation than those who survived with their native liver. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI/ALF, abnormal ROTEM parameters are frequent and proportional to disease severity. Whether the increased bleeding risk associated with abnormal ROTEM indicates hemostatic failure or is a proxy for disease severity requires additional study.

Chasing a rarity: a retrospective single-center evaluation of prognostic factors in primary gliosarcoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary gliosarcoma (GS) is a rare variant of IDH-wildtype glioblastoma multiforme. We performed a single-center analysis to identify prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the records of 26 patients newly diagnosed with primary WHO grade IV GS. Factors of interest were clinical and treatment data, as well as molecular markers, time to recurrence, and time to death. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 9 months (range 5-21 months). Gross total resection did not lead to improved survival, most likely due to the relatively small sample size. Low symptom burden at the time of diagnosis was associated with longer PFS (P = 0.023) and OS (P = 0.018). Median OS in the entire cohort was 12 months. Neither MGMT promoter hypermethylation nor adjuvant temozolomide therapy influenced survival, consistent with some previous reports. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients exhibiting low symptom burden at diagnosis showed improved survival. None of the other factors analyzed were associated with an altered outcome.

The Association of Fibrosis-4 Index Scores with Severe Liver Outcomes in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4)non-invasively assesses fibrosis risk in chronic liver disease (CLD), but underdiagnosis limits FIB-4's application in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of FIB-4 risk with hazard of severe liver outcomes in primary care patients with and without diagnosed CLD. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of primary care data from 2007 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with qualifying aminotransferase and platelet count results were included and a single FIB-4 score was calculated for each patient using the first of these values. Patients with a CLD diagnosis or outcome prior to their FIB-4 score were excluded. MEASURES: FIB-4 advanced fibrosis risk categorization (low, indeterminate, and high) was the primary predictor variable. Patients were followed from FIB-4 score to a severe liver outcome, a composite of cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. We analyzed the association of FIB-4 risk categories with hazard risk of a severe liver outcome using stratified Cox regression models, stratifying patients by known CLD. KEY RESULTS: A total of 20,556 patients were followed for a mean 2,978 days (SD 1,201 days), and 4% of patients experienced a severe liver outcome. Of patients with low-, indeterminate-, and high-risk FIB-4 scores, 2%, 4%, and 20% suffered a severe liver outcome, respectively. In the overall adjusted model, high-risk FIB-4 scores were associated with hazard of severe liver disease (HR 6.64; 95% CI 5.58-7.90). High-risk FIB-4 scores were associated with severe liver outcomes for patients with known NAFLD (HR 7.32; 95% CI 3.44-15.58), other liver disease (HR 11.39; 95% CI 8.53-15.20), and no known CLD (HR 4.05; 95% CI 3.10-5.28). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk FIB-4 scores were strongly associated with risk of severe liver outcomes in patients with and without known CLD. Comprehensive FIB-4 application in primary care may signal silently advancing liver fibrosis.

Assessing Site Specificity of Osteoarthritic Gait Kinematics with Wearable Sensors and Their Association with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Knee versus Hip Osteoarthritis.

There is a great need for quantitative outcomes reflecting the functional status in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) to advance the development and investigation of interventions for OA. The purpose of this study was to determine if gait kinematics specific to the disease-i.e., knee versus hip OA-can be identified using wearable sensors and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) and whether disease-related gait deviations are associated with patient reported outcome measures. 113 participants (N = 29 unilateral knee OA; N = 30 unilateral hip OA; N = 54 age-matched asymptomatic persons) completed gait analysis with wearable sensors and the Knee/Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS/HOOS). Data were analyzed using SPM. Knee and hip kinematics differed between patients with knee OA and patients with hip OA (up to 14°, p < 0.001 for knee and 8°, p = 0.003 for hip kinematics), and differences from controls were more pronounced in the affected than unaffected leg of patients. The observed deviations in ankle, knee and hip kinematic trajectories from controls were associated with KOOS/HOOS in both groups. Capturing gait kinematics using wearables has a large potential for application as outcome in clinical trials and for monitoring treatment success in patients with knee or hip OA and in large cohorts representing a major advancement in research on musculoskeletal diseases.

Biosafety measures for preventing infection from COVID-19 in clinical laboratories: IFCC Taskforce Recommendations.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the third coronavirus outbreak that has emerged in the past 20 years, after severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). One important aspect, highlighted by many global health organizations, is that this novel coronavirus outbreak may be especially hazardous to healthcare personnel, including laboratory professionals. Therefore, the aim of this document, prepared by the COVID-19 taskforce of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), is to provide a set of recommendations, adapted from official documents of international and national health agencies, on biosafety measures for routine clinical chemistry laboratories that operate at biosafety levels 1 (BSL-1; work with agents posing minimal threat to laboratory workers) and 2 (BSL-2; work with agents associated with human disease which pose moderate hazard). We believe that the interim measures proposed in this document for best practice will help minimazing the risk of developing COVID-19 while working in clinical laboratories.

Operational considerations and challenges of biochemistry laboratories during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 conducted a global survey to understand how biochemistry laboratories manage the operational challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: An electronic survey was distributed globally to record the operational considerations to mitigate biosafety risks in the laboratory. Additionally, the laboratories were asked to indicate the operational challenges they faced. Results: A total of 1210 valid submissions were included in this analysis. Most of the survey participants worked in hospital laboratories. Around 15% of laboratories restricted certain tests on patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19 over biosafety concerns. Just over 10% of the laboratories had to restrict their test menu or services due to resource constraints. Approximately a third of laboratories performed temperature monitoring, while two thirds of laboratories increased the frequency of disinfection. Just less than 50% of the laboratories split their teams. The greatest reported challenge faced by laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic is securing sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), analytical equipment, including those used at the point of care, as well as reagents, consumables and other laboratory materials. This was followed by having inadequate staff, managing their morale, anxiety and deployment. Conclusions: The restriction of tests and services may have undesirable clinical consequences as clinicians are deprived of important information to deliver appropriate care to their patients. Staff rostering and biosafety concerns require longer-term solutions as they are crucial for the continued operation of the laboratory during what may well be a prolonged pandemic.

Laboratory practices to mitigate biohazard risks during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: A global survey was conducted by the IFCC Task Force on COVID-19 to better understand how general biochemistry laboratories manage the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical processes to mitigate biohazard risks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: An electronic survey was developed to record the general characteristics of the laboratory, as well as the pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical and operational practices of biochemistry laboratories that are managing clinical samples of patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 1210 submissions were included in the analysis. The majority of responses came from hospital central/core laboratories that serve hospital patient groups and handle moderate daily sample volumes. There has been a decrease in the use of pneumatic tube transport, increase in hand delivery and increase in number of layers of plastic bags for samples of patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Surgical face masks and gloves are the most commonly used personal protective equipment (PPE). Just >50% of the laboratories did not perform an additional decontamination step on the instrument after analysis of samples from patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A fifth of laboratories disallowed add-on testing on these samples. Less than a quarter of laboratories autoclaved their samples prior to disposal. Conclusions: The survey responses showed wide variation in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practices in terms of PPE adoption and biosafety processes. It is likely that many of the suboptimal biosafety practices are related to practical local factors, such as limited PPE availability and lack of automated instrumentation.

Molecular, serological, and biochemical diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19: IFCC taskforce evaluation of the latest evidence.

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented major challenges for clinical laboratories, from initial diagnosis to patient monitoring and treatment. Initial response to this pandemic involved the development, production, and distribution of diagnostic molecular assays at an unprecedented rate, leading to minimal validation requirements and concerns regarding their diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings. In addition to molecular testing, serological assays to detect antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are now becoming available from numerous diagnostic manufacturers. In both cases, the lack of peer-reviewed data and regulatory oversight, combined with general misconceptions regarding their appropriate use, have highlighted the importance of laboratory professionals in robustly validating and evaluating these assays for appropriate clinical use. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 has been established to synthesize up-to-date information on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and laboratory diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19, as well as to develop practical recommendations on the use of molecular, serological, and biochemical tests in disease diagnosis and management. This review summarizes the latest evidence and status of molecular, serological, and biochemical testing in COVID-19 and highlights some key considerations for clinical laboratories operating to support the global fight against this ongoing pandemic. Confidently this consolidated information provides a useful resource to laboratories and a reminder of the laboratory's critical role as the world battles this unprecedented crisis.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Molecular Testing of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

The diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection globally has relied extensively on molecular testing, contributing vitally to case identification, isolation, contact tracing, and rationalization of infection control measures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinical laboratories have thus needed to verify newly developed molecular tests and increase testing capacity at an unprecedented rate. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a global health threat, laboratories continue to encounter challenges in the selection, verification, and interpretation of these tests. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay verification, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide and highlight the continued importance of laboratory medicine in our collective pandemic response.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Serological Testing of Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Serological testing for the detection of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as an important component of the clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as the epidemiological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure worldwide. In addition to molecular testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical laboratories have also needed to increase testing capacity to include serological evaluation of patients with suspected or known COVID-19. While regulatory approved serological immunoassays are now widely available from diagnostic manufacturers globally, there is significant debate regarding the clinical utility of these tests, as well as their clinical and analytical performance requirements prior to application. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay evaluation, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for serological testing of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories in the selection, verification, and implementation of serological assays and are of the utmost importance as we expand our pandemic response from initial case tracing and containment to mitigation strategies to minimize resurgence and further morbidity and mortality.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Biochemical/Hematological Monitoring of COVID-19 Patients.

Routine biochemical and hematological tests have been reported to be useful in the stratification and prognostication of pediatric and adult patients with diagnosed coronavirus disease (COVID-19), correlating with poor outcomes such as the need for mechanical ventilation or intensive care, progression to multisystem organ failure, and/or death. While these tests are already well established in most clinical laboratories, there is still debate regarding their clinical value in the management of COVID-19, particularly in pediatrics, as well as the value of composite clinical risk scores in COVID-19 prognostication. This document by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications for testing, (B) recommendations for test selection and interpretation, (C) considerations in test interpretation, and (D) current limitations of biochemical/hematological monitoring of COVID-19 patients. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide, underscoring the contribution of biochemical and hematological testing to our collective pandemic response.