The laboratory investigation of pleural fluids: An update based on the available evidence.

Selecting appropriate laboratory tests based on available evidence is central to improve clinical effectiveness and impacting on patient outcome. Although long studied, there is no mutual agreement upon pleural fluid (PF) management in the laboratory context. Given the experienced confusion about the real contribution of laboratory investigations to guide clinical interpretation, in this update, we tried to identify useful tests for the PF analysis, aiming to unravel critical points and to define a common line in requesting modalities and practical management. We performed a careful literature review and a deepened study on available guidelines to finalize an evidence-based test selection, intended for clinicians' use to streamline PF management. The following tests depicted the basic PF profile routinely needed: (1) abbreviated Light's criteria (PF/serum total protein ratio and PF/serum lactate dehydrogenase ratio) and (2) cell count with differential analysis of haematological cells. This profile fulfils the primary goal to determine the PF nature and discriminate between exudative and transudative effusions. In specific circumstances, clinicians may consider additional tests as follows: the albumin serum to PF gradient, which reduces exudate misclassification rate by Light's criteria in patients with cardiac failure assuming diuretics; PF triglycerides, in differentiating chylothorax from pseudochylothorax; PF glucose, for identification of parapneumonic effusions and other causes of effusion, such as rheumatoid arthritis and malignancy; PF pH, in suspected infectious pleuritis and to give indications for pleural drainage; and PF adenosine deaminase, for a rapid detection of tuberculous effusion.

Pursuing appropriateness of laboratory tests: a 15-year experience in an academic medical institution.

Appropriateness in Laboratory Medicine has been the object of various types of interventions. From published experiences, it is now clear that to effectively manage the laboratory test demand it is recommended to activate evidence-based preventative strategies stopping inappropriate requests before they can reach the laboratory. To guarantee appropriate laboratory test utilization, healthcare institutions should implement and optimize a computerized provider order entry (CPOE), exploiting the potential of electronic requesting as "enabling factor" for reinforcing appropriateness and sustaining its effects over time. In our academic institution, over the last 15 years, our medical laboratory has enforced various interventions to improve test appropriateness, all directly or indirectly based on CPOE use. The following types of intervention were implemented: (1) applying specific recommendations supported by monitoring by CPOE as well as a continuous consultation with clinicians (tumour markers); (2) removing outdated tests and avoiding redundant duplications (cardiac markers, pancreatic enzymes); (3) order restraints to selected wards and gating policy (procalcitonin, B-type natriuretic peptide, homocysteine); (4) reflex testing (bilirubin fractions, free prostate-specific antigen, aminotransferases, magnesium in hypocalcemia); and (5) minimum retesting interval (D-Dimer, vitamin B12, C-reactive protein, γ-glutamyltranspeptidase). In this paper, we reviewed these interventions and summarized their outcomes primarily related to the changes in total test volumes and cost savings, without neglecting patient safety. Our experience confirmed that laboratory professionals have an irreplaceable role as "stewards" in designing, implementing, evaluating, and maintaining interventions focused to improving test appropriateness.

Prognostic role of Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) measurement in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial disease with limited therapeutic options. The measurement of Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) glycoprotein has been proposed for evaluating the risk of IPF progression and predicting patient prognosis, but the robustness of available evidence is unclear. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases for peer-reviewed literature from inception to April 2020. Original articles investigating KL-6 as prognostic marker for IPF were retrieved. Considered outcomes were the risk of developing acute exacerbation (AE) and patient survival. Meta-analysis of selected studies was conducted, and quantitative data were uniformed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) estimates, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review and 14 were finally meta-analysed. For AE development, the pooled OR (seven studies) for KL-6 was 2.72 (CI 1.22-6.06; p=0.015). However, a high degree of heterogeneity (I2=85.6%) was found among selected studies. Using data from three studies reporting binary data, a pooled sensitivity of 72% (CI 60-82%) and a specificity of 60% (CI 52-68%) were found for KL-6 measurement in detecting insurgence of AE in IPF patients. Pooled HR (seven studies) for mortality prediction was 1.009 (CI 0.983-1.036; p=0.505). CONCLUSIONS: Although our meta-analysis suggested that IPF patients with increased KL-6 concentrations had a significant increased risk of developing AE, the detection power of the evaluated biomarker is limited. Furthermore, no relationship between biomarker concentrations and mortality was found. Caution is also needed when extending obtained results to non-Asian populations.

Searching for a role of procalcitonin determination in COVID-19: a study on a selected cohort of hospitalized patients.

Objectives: Procalcitonin (PCT) has been proposed for differentiating viral vs. bacterial infections. In COVID-19, some preliminary results have shown that PCT testing could act as a predictor of bacterial co-infection and be a useful marker for assessment of disease severity. Methods: We studied 83 COVID-19 hospitalized patients in whom PCT was specifically ordered by attending physicians. PCT results were evaluated according to the ability to accurately predict bacterial co-infections and death in comparison with other known biomarkers of infection and with major laboratory predictors of COVID-19 severity. Results: Thirty-three (39.8%) patients suffered an in-hospital bacterial co-infection and 44 (53.0%) patients died. In predicting bacterial co-infection, PCT showed a relatively low accuracy (area under receiver-operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC]: 0.757; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.651-0.845), with a strength for detecting the outcome not significantly different from that of white blood cell count and C-reactive protein (CRP). In predicting patient death, PCT showed an AUC of 0.815 (CI: 0.714-0.892), not better than those of other more common laboratory tests, such as blood lymphocyte percentage (AUC: 0.874, p=0.19), serum lactate dehydrogenase (AUC: 0.860, p=0.47), blood neutrophil count (AUC: 0.845, p=0.59), and serum albumin (AUC: 0.839, p=0.73). Conclusions: Procalcitonin (PCT) testing, even when appropriately ordered, did not provide a significant added value in COVID-19 patients when compared with more consolidated biomarkers of infection and poor clinical outcome. The major application of PCT in COVID-19 is its ability, associated with a negative predictive value >90%, to exclude a bacterial co-infection when a rule-out cut-off (<0.25 µg/L) is applied.

Procalcitonin: Between evidence and critical issues.

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated response of the host to infection. It represents one of the major health care problems worldwide. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of sepsis is challenging for many reasons, including a lack of a sufficiently sensitive and specific diagnostic test. When procalcitonin (PCT) was discovered, it was thought that it could become the best test for identifying patients with sepsis. From the evidence sources in the available literature, it is now clear that the power of PCT in differentiating infectious from non-infectious forms of systemic inflammatory response syndrome in adults, and in stratifying morbidity and mortality risk, is limited. Nevertheless, PCT determination can be a useful tool for diagnosing late-onset neonatal sepsis, bacterial meningitis and other forms of organ-related bacterial infections and, above all, it can be used for guiding antibiotic stewardship in critical patients. The real impact of this application of PCT testing, however, still needs to be clearly defined. Laboratories should offer unrestricted PCT testing only to intensive care units (as an aid in decision for continuing or stopping antibiotics) and pediatric wards. For all other clinical wards, the laboratory should guide PCT requests and give them support towards the most appropriate approach to testing.