Laboratory sample stability. Is it possible to define a consensus stability function? An example of five blood magnitudes.

BACKGROUND: The stability limit of an analyte in a biological sample can be defined as the time required until a measured property acquires a bias higher than a defined specification. Many studies assessing stability and presenting recommendations of stability limits are available, but differences among them are frequent. The aim of this study was to classify and to grade a set of bibliographic studies on the stability of five common blood measurands and subsequently generate a consensus stability function. METHODS: First, a bibliographic search was made for stability studies for five analytes in blood: alanine aminotransferase (ALT), glucose, phosphorus, potassium and prostate specific antigen (PSA). The quality of every study was evaluated using an in-house grading tool. Second, the different conditions of stability were uniformly defined and the percent deviation (PD%) over time for each analyte and condition were scattered while unifying studies with similar conditions. RESULTS: From the 37 articles considered as valid, up to 130 experiments were evaluated and 629 PD% data were included (106 for ALT, 180 for glucose, 113 for phosphorus, 145 for potassium and 85 for PSA). Consensus stability equations were established for glucose, potassium, phosphorus and PSA, but not for ALT. CONCLUSIONS: Time is the main variable affecting stability in medical laboratory samples. Bibliographic studies differ in recommedations of stability limits mainly because of different specifications for maximum allowable error. Definition of a consensus stability function in specific conditions can help laboratories define stability limits using their own quality specifications.

Prioritization of Variants Detected by Next Generation Sequencing According to the Mutation Tolerance and Mutational Architecture of the Corresponding Genes.

The biggest challenge geneticists face when applying next-generation sequencing technology to the diagnosis of rare diseases is determining which rare variants, from the dozens or hundreds detected, are potentially implicated in the patient's phenotype. Thus, variant prioritization is an essential step in the process of rare disease diagnosis. In addition to conducting the usual in-silico analyses to predict variant pathogenicity (based on nucleotide/amino-acid conservation and the differences between the physicochemical features of the amino-acid change), three important concepts should be borne in mind. The first is the "mutation tolerance" of the genes in which variants are located. This describes the susceptibility of a given gene to any functional mutation and depends on the strength of purifying selection acting against it. The second is the "mutational architecture" of each gene. This describes the type and location of mutations previously identified in the gene, and their association with different phenotypes or degrees of severity. The third is the mode of inheritance (inherited vs. de novo) of the variants detected. Here, we discuss the importance of each of these concepts for variant prioritization in the diagnosis of rare diseases. Using real data, we show how genes, rather than variants, can be prioritized by calculating a gene-specific mutation tolerance score. We also illustrate the influence of mutational architecture on variant prioritization using five paradigmatic examples. Finally, we discuss the importance of familial variant analysis as final step in variant prioritization.

Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years' experience.

BACKGROUND: Preanalytical variables, such as sample collection, handling and transport, may affect patient results. Preanalytical phase quality monitoring should be established in order to minimize laboratory errors and improve patient safety. METHODS: A retrospective study (2001-2013) of the results obtained through the Spanish Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Pathology (SEQC) External quality assessment (preanalytical phase) was performed to summarize data regarding the main factors affecting preanalytical phase quality. Our aim was to compare data from 2006 to 2013 with a previously published manuscript assessing the 2001-2005 period. RESULTS: A significant decrease in rejection rates was observed both for blood and urine samples. For serum samples, the most frequent rejection causes in the first period were non-received samples (37.5%), hemolysis (29.3%) and clotted samples (14.4%). Conversely, in the second period, hemolysis was the main rejection cause (36.2%), followed by non-received samples (34.5%) and clotted samples (11.1%). For urine samples, the main rejection cause overall was a non-received sample (up to 86.1% of cases in the second period, and 81.6% in the first). For blood samples with anticoagulant, the number of rejections also decreased. While plasma-citrate-ESR still showed the highest percentages of rejections (0.980% vs. 1.473%, p<0.001), the lowest corresponded to whole-blood EDTA (0.296% vs. 0.381%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of sample types, a decrease in preanalytical errors was confirmed. Improvements in organization, implementation of standardized procedures in the preanalytical phase, and participation in a Spanish external quality assessment scheme may have notably contributed to error reduction in this phase.

Influence of study model, baseline catalytic concentrations and analytical system on the stability of serum alanine aminotransferase.

Objectives: The stability of the analytes most commonly used in routine clinical practice has been the subject of intensive research, with varying and even conflicting results. Such is the case of alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of serum ALT according to different variables. Methods: A multicentric study was conducted in eight laboratories using serum samples with known initial catalytic concentrations of ALT within four different ranges, namely: <50 U/L (<0.83 µkat/L), 50-200 U/L (0.83-3.33 µkat/L), 200-400 U/L (3.33-6.67 µkat/L) and >400 U/L (>6.67 µkat/L). Samples were stored for seven days at two different temperatures using four experimental models and four laboratory analytical platforms. The respective stability equations were calculated by linear regression. A multivariate model was used to assess the influence of different variables. Results: Catalytic concentrations of ALT decreased gradually over time. Temperature (-4%/day at room temperature vs. -1%/day under refrigeration) and the analytical platform had a significant impact, with Architect (Abbott) showing the greatest instability. Initial catalytic concentrations of ALT only had a slight impact on stability, whereas the experimental model had no impact at all. Conclusions: The constant decrease in serum ALT is reduced when refrigerated. Scarcely studied variables were found to have a significant impact on ALT stability. This observation, added to a considerable inter-individual variability, makes larger studies necessary for the definition of stability equations.

Corrigendum to: Preanalytical issues related to routine and diagnostic glucose tests: Results from a survey in Spain.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.11613/BM.2020.010704.].

Preanalytical issues related to routine and diagnostic glucose tests: Results from a survey in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. The objective of this study was to find out under what preanalytical conditions routine and diagnostic glucose tests are performed across Spanish laboratories; and also what criteria are used for DM diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was performed by the Commission on Quality Assurance in the Extra-Analytical Phase of the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML). Access to the questionnaire was available on the home page of the SEQC-ML website during the period April-July 2018. Data analysis was conducted with the IBM SPSS© Statistics (version 20.0) program. RESULTS: A total of 96 valid surveys were obtained. Most laboratories were in public ownership, serving hospital and primary care patients, with high and medium workloads, and a predominance of mixed routine-urgent glucose testing. Serum tubes were the most used for routine glucose analysis (92%) and DM diagnosis (54%); followed by lithium-heparin plasma tubes (62%), intended primarily for urgent glucose testing; point-of-care testing devices were used by 37%; and plasma tubes with a glycolysis inhibitor, mainly sodium fluoride, by 19%. Laboratories used the cut-off values and criteria recognized worldwide for DM diagnosis in adults and glucose-impaired tolerance, but diverged in terms of fasting plasma glucose and gestational DM criteria. CONCLUSION: Preanalytical processing of routine and DM diagnostic glucose testing in Spain does not allow a significant, non-quantified influence of glycolysis on the results to be ruled out. Possible adverse consequences include a delay in diagnosis and possible under-treatment.