Serum anion gap revisited: a verified reference interval for contemporary use.

BACKGROUND: The anion gap (AG) is often used to evaluate acid-base disorders. The reference interval for normal AG is used to differentiate between raised (gap) or normal AG (non-gap) acidosis. Historically accepted AG values may not be valid with the evolution of modern analytical techniques and the reference interval requires revalidation. AIMS: To determine the reference interval for AG based on current laboratory techniques. METHODS: During a health-screening exercise, 284 participants with no major illnesses volunteered surplus blood for analysis. The samples were tested in an internationally accredited clinical laboratory. AG was calculated by [Na+ ] - [Cl- ] - [HCO3 - ] and AGK by [Na+ ] + [K+ ] - [Cl- ] - [HCO3 - ]. The reference interval was determined at 2.5th-97.5th percentiles. Analysis was further undertaken for a subcohort of 156 individuals with no suboptimal health indicators. RESULTS: Median age was 35 years, body mass index 23.4 kg/m2 and the glomerular filtration rate was 106 mL/min/1.73 m2 . Median AG was 13 mmol/L and the reference interval for normal AG is 10-18 mmol/L with a 99% level of confidence. Statistically significant differences in AG were detected for sex, race, obesity and serum albumin, but the difference was 1 mmol/L between subgroups. The reference interval was the same for the sub-cohort of 156 individuals. Median AGK was 17.7 mmol/L and reference interval was 14.6-22.5 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: The AG reference interval of 10-18 mmol/L is valid for laboratories with similar reference intervals for electrolytes. Lower values expected with current laboratory techniques were not observed. The median AG of 13 mmol/L may be used to differentiate gap acidosis, non-gap acidosis or mixed acid-base disorders.

Elevated remnant cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol concentrations from real-world laboratory results: a cross-sectional study in Southeast Asians.

Introduction: Triglyceride-rich remnant lipoproteins (TRLs) are considered atherogenic due to the presence of remnant cholesterol, which is transported by apolipoprotein B. In clinical practice, the concentration of TRLs can be estimated by calculating remnant cholesterol or non-HDL cholesterol levels. Aim: This study aims to investigate the proportion of patients who have low LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration but elevated remnant cholesterol concentration, stratified by the presence of hypertriglyceridaemia and ethnicity, using real-world hospital data. Our secondary aim is to investigate the proportion of patients with elevated non-HDL cholesterol levels using guideline-recommended goals. Methods: A 2-year retrospective study was conducted at a single centre, analyzing lipid blood tests of all patients, including directly measured LDL-C. Fasting for blood tests was not mandatory. Results: The study included a total of 21,605 consecutive patients with plasma lipid profiles analyzed in our hospital laboratory. The median age was 61 years. In patients with ASCVD (n = 14,704), 23.7% had an LDL-C level of <1.8 mmol/L, 11.3% had elevated remnant cholesterol concentrations at ≥0.65 mmol/L, and 48.8% were at the non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goal (<2.6 mmol/L). Among patients diagnosed with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with LDL-C levels of <1.8 mmol/L (n = 3,484), only 11.9% had high levels of remnant cholesterol, but 96% of the ASCVD patients also achieved the recommended non-HDL-C target of <2.6 mmol/L. When the LDL-C level was <1.8 mmol/L, the mean concentration of remnant cholesterol was 0.214 mmol/L when the triglyceride level was <1.7 mmol/L (n = 3,380), vs. 0.70 mmol/L when the triglyceride level was elevated (n = 724), p < 0.001. Among patients with a triglyceride level of ≥1.7 mmol/L and an LDL-C level of <.8 mmol/L, there were 254 patients with elevated remnant cholesterol concentration and 71 patients with suboptimal non-HDL levels. Malays had a higher mean remnant cholesterol concentration compared with both Chinese and Indians across all LDL-C levels, particularly in the presence of hypertriglyceridaemia. Conclusions: An elevated remnant cholesterol concentration of >0.65 mmol/L was present in 11% of all patients. The current guideline-recommended non-HDL-C goal, which uses a 0.8 mmol/L estimate of remnant cholesterol concentration, was achieved in >92% of patients, suggesting that it is unlikely to be clinically useful for the majority of our patient population except where there is concomitant hypertriglyceridaemia. Further studies are needed to establish the appropriate non-HDL-C goal or calculated remnant cholesterol concentration, paired with the LDL-C goal or otherwise, in a Southeast Asian population.

Proton-pump inhibitor use amongst patients with severe hypomagnesemia.

Introduction: Long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use has been associated with hypomagnesemia. It is unknown how frequently PPI use is implicated in patients with severe hypomagnesemia, and its clinical course or risk factors. Methods: All patients with severe hypomagnesemia from 2013 to 2016 in a tertiary center were assessed for likelihood of PPI-related hypomagnesemia using Naranjo algorithm, and we described the clinical course. The clinical characteristics of each case of PPI-related severe hypomagnesemia was compared with three controls on long-term PPI without hypomagnesemia, to assess for risk factors of developing severe hypomagnesemia. Results: Amongst 53,149 patients with serum magnesium measurements, 360 patients had severe hypomagnesemia (<0.4 mmol/L). 189 of 360 (52.5%) patients had at least possible PPI-related hypomagnesemia (128 possible, 59 probable, two definite). 49 of 189 (24.7%) patients had no other etiology for hypomagnesemia. PPI was stopped in 43 (22.8%) patients. Seventy (37.0%) patients had no indication for long-term PPI use. Hypomagnesemia resolved in most patients after supplementation, but recurrence was higher in patients who continued PPI, 69.7% versus 35.7%, p = 0.009. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for hypomagnesemia were female gender (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.57), diabetes mellitus (OR, 4.62; 95% CI: 3.05-7.00), low BMI (OR, 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.94), high-dose PPI (OR, 1.96; 95% CI: 1.29-2.98), renal impairment (OR, 3.85; 95% CI: 2.58-5.75), and diuretic use (OR, 1.68; 95% CI: 1.09-2.61). Conclusion: In patients with severe hypomagnesemia, clinicians should consider the possibility of PPI-related hypomagnesemia and re-examine the indication for continued PPI use, or consider a lower dose.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Intervals: Twice or Thrice a Week?

Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 has become an increasingly prominent screening tool in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and can be performed multiple times a week. However, the optimal weekly frequency of antigen testing is unclear; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 1-3 times a week, while some experts support testing 2-3 times a week. In our own laboratory, all staff (n = 161) underwent twice- and thrice-weekly antigen tests during different periods from August 2021 to the present as part of routine COVID-19 surveillance of healthcare workers. No cases of COVID-19 were detected with either regimen. While more frequent SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing may allow antigen testing to be an important surrogate for RT-PCR testing, performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests twice or thrice a week shows no inferiority to each other in screening for COVID-19.

Considerations in Understanding Vaccine Effectiveness.

Although vaccine effectiveness reports are essential to assessing policies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, several factors can affect our interpretation of the results. These include the waning of antibodies, the prevailing viral variants at the time of the study, and COVID-19 disease prevalence in the population. Disease prevalence significantly impacts absolute risk reduction and could skew expected efficacy when increased disease prevalence inflates the absolute risk reduction in the face of a constant relative risk reduction. These factors must be considered in the interpretation of vaccine effectiveness to better understand how vaccines can improve disease prevention among the population. We highlight the impact of various factors on vaccine effectiveness.

210-Day Kinetics of Total, IgG, and Neutralizing Spike Antibodies across a Course of 3 Doses of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine.

Introduction: We tested the total spike antibody (S-Ab), IgG/IgM S-Ab, and neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) responses of COVID-19-naïve subjects from before their first BNT162b2 vaccination up to 210 days after boosting. Methods: We studied 136 COVID-19-naïve subjects who received three doses of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (39 males, 97 females, mean age 43.8 ± 13.5 years) from January 2021 to May 2022. Serum was assessed for total S-Ab (Roche), IgG/M (Abbott), and N-Ab (Snibe). Results: Peak antibody levels were measured 20-30 days after each dose, with booster dosing eliciting significantly higher peak antibodies than the second dose: total S-Ab 2219 vs. 19,551 BAU/mL (difference 16,667 BAU/mL, p < 0.0001); IgG 2270 vs. 2932 BAU/mL (difference 660 BAU/mL, p = 0.04); and N-Ab 3.52 vs. 26.4 µg/mL (difference 21.4 µg/mL, p < 0.0001). Only IgM showed a lower peak post-booster antibody titer (COI 2.11 vs. 0.23, difference 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.38, p < 0.0001). By 180−210 days after the second or third vaccination, total S-Ab/IgG/N-Ab had decreased by 68.7/93.8/73.6% vs. 82.8/86.3/79.5%. The half-lives of IgG and N-Ab antibodies were longer after the third vaccination (IgG: 65 vs. 34 days, N-Ab: 99 vs. 78 days). Conclusion: Total S-Ab/IgG/N-Ab showed a greater increase post-booster, with IgG/N-Ab having a longer half-life.

Evaluation and Validation of the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Electro-Chemiluminescent Immunoassay in a Southeast Asian Region.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests can complement and substitute for RT-PCR tests. Centralized laboratory automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests that can be scaled to process a large number COVID-19 cases simultaneously are now available. We have evaluated the new Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen electro-chemiluminescent immunoassay. METHODS: The Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay is a double-antibody sandwich electro-chemiluminescent immunoassay, which reports a cut-off index (COI) (COI ≥ 1.0 considered positive). We assessed assay precision and linearity, and confirmed the reactivity limit. We determined the assay sensitivity and specificity with a verification group (289 controls and 61 RT-PCR positive COVID-19 cases). Assay performance was also validated against the consecutive samples we received (7657 controls and 17 cases) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing from June to October 2021. RESULT: The assay had a within-run precision CV of 3.0% at COI 0.68, and a CV of 1.5% at COI 3.49. Between-run precision was 3.0% at COI 0.68 and 1.8% at COI 3.49. The assay was linear from COI 0.65 to 7.84. All 35 C50 ± 20% test results performed over 7 days were positive/negative, respectively. In the verification group, overall sensitivity was 42.6% (26/61 positive, 95% CI 30.0-55.9), and specificity was 99.7% (1/289 positive, 95% CI 98.1-100). The agreement between the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and the RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) count was good (r = 0.90). In cases with Ct counts ≤ 30, the antigen assay sensitivity improved to 94.7% (18/19 positive, 95% CI 74.0-99.9). In our validation group, antigen sensitivity was 62.5% (5/8 antigen positive, 95% CI 24.5-91.5) within the first week of disease onset, but no cases were reactive after the first week of disease onset. CONCLUSION: The Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay has good performance within manufacturer specifications. The sensitivity of the Roche antigen assay was greatest when used in patients with lower RT-PCR Ct values (≤30) and within the first week of disease onset.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Neutralizing Antibody Kinetics 90 Days after Three Doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the post-booster (BNT162b2) antibody responses in Singapore. METHODS: Participants (n = 43) were tested pre-booster and 20/30/60/90 days post-booster. Participants were boosted 120-240 days (mean 214 days) after their second dose and had no history or serologic evidence of prior COVID-19 infection; all participants had undetectable SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies throughout the study. Total nucleocapsid and spike antibodies (S-Ab) were assessed on the Roche Elecsys e802 and neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) on the Snibe quantitative N-Ab assay. RESULTS: Pre-booster median S-Ab/N-Ab titers were 829 BAU/mL/0.83 µg/mL; 2 participants were below manufacturer's N-Ab cut-offs of 0.3 µg/mL (0.192 and 0.229). Both S-Ab and N-Ab titers peaked at 30 days post-booster (median S-Ab 25,220 BAU/mL and N-Ab 30.3 µg/mL) at 30-37× pre-booster median levels. These peak post-booster S-Ab/N-Ab titers were 11× (25,220 vs. 2235 BAU/mL) and 9× (30.3 vs. 3.52 µg/mL) higher than the previously reported peak post-second dose levels. Antibody titers declined to 12,315 BAU/mL (51% decrease) and 14.3 µg/mL (53% decrease) 90 days post-booster. Non-linear regression estimates for S-Ab/N-Ab half-lives were 44/58 days. At 180 days post-booster, S-Ab/N-Ab are estimated to be 2671 BAU/mL/4.83 µg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Both S-Ab and N-Ab show a good response following post-booster vaccination, with half-lives that may provide a prolonged antibody response.

Performance of the Abbott Architect Immuno-Chemiluminometric NT-proBNP Assay.

Background: We evaluated the performance of the Abbott N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay against the Roche NT-proBNP immunoassay across two sites. Methods: Precision, linearity, and sensitivity studies were performed. A combined method of comparison and regression analysis was performed between the Roche and Abbott assays using samples from both sites (n = 494). To verify biotin interference, lyophilised biotin powder was reconstituted and spiked into serum samples at two medical decision levels (final concentration 500/4250 ng/mL) and compared to controls. NT-proBNP was also measured in anonymised leftover sera (n = 388) in a cardio-renal healthy population and stratified into three age bands­<50 (n = 145), 50−75 (n = 183) and >75 (n = 60). Results: Between-run precision (CV%) for NT-proBNP was 4.17/4.50 (139.5/142.0 pg/mL), 3.83/2.17 (521.6/506.3), and 4.60/2.51 (5053/4973), respectively. The assay was linear from 0.7−41,501 pg/mL. The limit of blank/quantitation was 1.2/7.9 pg/mL. The assay showed no interference from biotin up to 4250 ng/mL. Passing−Bablok regression analysis showed excellent agreement between the two assays (r = 0.999, 95% CI 0.999 to 0.999, p < 0.0001). The Roche assay had a slightly persistent, negative bias across different levels of NT-proBNP. ESC age cut-offs for diagnosing acute heart failure are applicable for the Abbott assay, with the median NT-proBNP of subjects < 50 years old at 43.0 pg/mL (range 4.9−456 pg/mL), 50−75 years old at 95.1 pg/mL (range 10.5−1079 pg/mL), and >75 years old at 173.1 pg/mL (range 23.2−1948 pg/mL). Conclusions: The Abbott Architect NT-proBNP assay has good performance that agrees with the manufacturer's specifications. ESC/AHA recommended NT-proBNP age groups for acute heart failure diagnosis are applicable to this assay.

Neutralizing and Total/IgG Spike Antibody Responses Following Homologous CoronaVac vs. BNT162b2 Vaccination Up to 90 Days Post-Booster.

INTRODUCTION: We documented the total spike antibody (S-Ab), IgG S-Ab and neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) responses of BNT162b2/CoronaVac vaccinees up to 90 days post-booster dose. METHODS: We included 32 homologous regimen CoronaVac vaccinees and 136 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinees. We tested their total S-Ab (Roche), IgG (Abbott) and N-Ab (Snibe) levels at set time points from January 2021 to April 2022. All subjects were deemed to be COVID-19-naïve either via clinical history (CoronaVac vaccinees) or nucleocapsid antibody testing (BNT162b2 vaccinees). RESULTS: All antibodies peaked 20-30 days post-inoculation. In BNT162b2 vaccinees, all post-booster antibodies were significantly higher than second-dose peaks. In CoronaVac vaccinees, IgG showed no significant differences between peak third-/second-dose titers (difference of 56.0 BAU/mL, 95% CI of -17.1 to 129, p = 0.0894). The post-vaccination titers of all antibodies in BNT162b2 vaccinees were significantly higher than those in CoronaVac vaccinees at all time points. Post-booster, all antibodies declined in 90 days; the final total/IgG/N-Ab titers were 7536 BAU/mL, 1276 BAU/mL and 12.5 µg/mL in BNT162b2 vaccinees and 646 BAU/mL, 62.4 BAU/mL and 0.44 µg/mL in CoronaVac vaccinees. CONCLUSION: The mRNA vaccine generated more robust total S-Ab, IgG and N-Ab responses after the second and third vaccinations.

Kinetics of the Neutralizing and Spike SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies following the Sinovac Inactivated Virus Vaccine Compared to the Pfizer mRNA Vaccine in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the early total spike antibody (S-Ab) and neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) responses to two vaccines. METHODS: We studied 96 Pfizer and 34 Sinovac vaccinees over a 14-month period from January 2021 to February 2022. All vaccinees received three doses of one type of vaccine. Antibody levels (Roche Elecsys total S-Ab and the Snibe N-Ab) were tested 10 days after the first dose, 20 days after the second dose, and 20 days after the booster dose. RESULTS: At all time points, the mRNA vaccine generated higher S-Ab and N-Ab responses than the inactivated virus vaccine (S-Ab: first dose 2.48 vs. 0.4 BAU/mL, second dose 2174 vs. 98 BAU/mL, third dose 15,004 vs. 525 BAU/mL; N-Ab: first dose 0.05 vs. 0.02 µg/mL, second dose 3.48 vs. 0.38 µg/mL, third dose 19.8 vs. 0.89 µg/mL). mRNA vaccine recipients had a 6.2/22.2/28.6-fold higher S-Ab and 2.5/9.2/22.2-fold higher N-Ab response than inactivated virus vaccine recipients after the first/second/third inoculations, respectively. Mann-Whitney U analysis confirmed the significant difference in S-Ab and N-Ab titers between vaccination groups at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA vaccines generated a more robust S-Ab and N-Ab response than the inactivated virus vaccine at all time points after the first, second, and third vaccinations.

Disease Prevalence Matters: Challenge for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

While sensitivity and specificity are important characteristics for any diagnostic test, the influence of prevalence is equally, if not more, important when such tests are used in community screening. We review the concepts of positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and how disease prevalence affects false positive/negative rates. In low-prevalence situations, the PPV decreases drastically. We demonstrate how using two tests in an orthogonal fashion can be especially beneficial in low-prevalence settings and greatly improve the PPV of the diagnostic test results.

Faster HbA1c Turnaround Times Using a Dedicated Analyzer Based on Turbidimetric Inhibition Immunoassay Technology.

INTRODUCTION: The Roche Cobas c513 (c513) is a dedicated stand-alone high throughput HbA1c analyzer. We evaluated the performance and the difference in turnaround times (TAT) of the c513 against our Cobas 8000 c502 (c502). METHODS: We assessed the linearity and precision of the c513, and its agreement (Deming regression and Bland-Altman analysis) with the c502 assay. We compared TAT for these analyzers for a single run of 50 samples and for all samples run over 2 comparable time periods. RESULTS: The c513 assay was linear from 4.4-18.3% HbA1c. Interassay precision (CV%) was 1.2 and 0.8 at HbA1c levels of 5.7 and 10.5%, respectively. The c513 assay showed excellent concordance with the c502 assay (r = 0.997) with no significant difference between methods by Bland-Altman analysis (mean difference = 0.021% HbA1c, P = 0.1422). The c513 took 17 min to analyze 50 samples, compared to 40 min on the c502. Over comparable 2-month periods, 90% of samples requiring HbA1c tests only were completed under 25 min (c513) vs 30-35 min (c502). For tubes sharing complete blood count (CBC) testing with HbA1c, the 90th percentile TAT was 35-40 min (c513) compared to 45-50 min (c502). CONCLUSION: The c513 assay performs well with excellent correlation to the c502 assay. The improved TAT of the c513 is suitable when there are demands for rapid HbA1c results and it may forestall requests for point-of-care testing. It is also attractive to sites with heavy workloads with a claimed throughput of 400 tests / h.

Robust SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in Asian COVID-Naïve Subjects 180 Days after Two Doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Subjects with previous COVID-19 have augmented post-vaccination responses. However, the antibody response in COVID-naïve subjects from Southeast Asia is not well known. METHODS: 77 COVID-naïve vaccinees were tested with a full antibody panel [spike antibodies (total (T-Ab), IgG, IgM) and neutralizing antibodies (N-Ab)] pre-vaccination, 10 days after dose 1, and 20/40/60/90/120/150/180 days after dose 2. RESULTS: 10 days after dose 1, 67.6% (48/71)/69.0% (49/71) were T-Ab/IgG positive; only 15.5% (11/71)/14.1% (10/71) were N-Ab/IgM positive. While all (100%) subjects had brisk T-Ab, IgG and N-Ab antibody responses 20 days after complete vaccination, only 79.1% (53/67) were IgM positive. At 180 days (n = 8), T-Ab/IgG/N-Ab were still reactive (lowest T-Ab 186 U/mL, IgG 617 AU/mL, N-Ab 0.39 µg/mL), but IgM was negative in all samples. Spike antibody thresholds of T-Ab 74.1 U/mL (r = 0.95) and IgG 916 AU/mL (r = 0.95) corresponded to N-Ab reactivity (>0.3 µg/mL). Non-linear regression analysis showed that N-Ab would decrease to 0.3 µg/mL by 241 days, whereas T-Ab/IgG would need 470/163 days to reach titers of T-Ab/IgG associated with a N-Ab 0.3 µg/mL (76.4 U/mL and 916 AU/mL respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The antibody responses of T-Ab, IgG and N-Ab remain high and durable even at 180 days. N-Ab titers are expected to remain reactive up to 241 days post-vaccination.