Commutability Assessment of Candidate Reference Materials for Pancreatic α-Amylase.

BACKGROUND: Measurement standardization of the catalytic concentration of α-amylase in serum is based on 3 pillars: the primary reference measurement procedure (PRMP), reference laboratories, and suitable certified reference materials (CRMs). Commutability is a prerequisite when using a CRM for calibration and trueness control of routine methods or for value transfer from the PRMP to end-user calibrators of routine methods through a calibration hierarchy. METHODS: We performed a commutability study with 30 serum pools and 5 candidate reference materials (RMs) for pancreatic α-amylase using an automated version of the PRMP and 5 different routine methods. Four candidate RMs had an artificial matrix, each with a different composition, and 1 candidate RM was based on human serum. Data were analyzed according to a linear regression analysis with prediction interval as described in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guideline EP30-A and a difference in bias analysis as described in the recommendations of the IFCC Working Group on Commutability. RESULTS: The commutability profile of the 4 candidate RMs with an artificial matrix was variable. Only 1 candidate RM, with human serum albumin in the matrix, showed a good profile like that of the candidate RM based on serum. The comparison of both commutability assessment approaches indicated some differences because of inconclusive results for the difference in bias approach, suggesting a large uncertainty on the commutability assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A CRM for pancreatic amylase in an artificial matrix can be commutable for routine methods using the same substrate as the PRMP, but the matrix composition is crucial.

Difference in bias approach for commutability assessment: application to frozen pools of human serum measured by 8 direct methods for HDL and LDL cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: We used a difference in bias approach to evaluate the commutability of 4 frozen serum pools for 8 direct methods for measurement of HDL and LDL cholesterol (HDLC and LDLC). METHODS: Freshly collected nonfrozen sera from 138 diseased and 37 nondiseased patients and 4 frozen pools from the CDC Lipid Standardization Program were measured by direct methods and by the beta-quantification reference measurement procedure of the CDC. We used an error components model to estimate the difference in the bias component of error plus its uncertainty for frozen pools vs patient samples between the direct method and the reference procedure. Frozen pools with bias differences less than a critical value determined by either medical requirements for bias or the random error components of the measurement procedures were considered commutable. RESULTS: On the basis of medical requirement criteria, 1 of the 4 frozen pools was commutable for most of the HDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients, and none was commutable for LDLC methods. On the basis of random error criteria, all of the frozen pools were generally commutable for all of the HDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients, and 1 of the 4 frozen pools was generally commutable for most of the LDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients. CONCLUSIONS: Commutability was assessed as the closeness of agreement of the difference in bias between a reference material and a set of patient samples. Criteria for commutability could be based on fixed medical requirements for bias or on random error components.

Mitral annulus motion compared with wall motion scoring index in the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.

The biplane disc summation method is the recommended echocardiographic procedure to determine left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Assessment of mitral annulus motion (MAM) or wall motion scoring index (WMI) has been reported to be less dependent on image quality compared with the recommended method, and proposed as a surrogate to the disc summation method in calculation of LVEF. We aimed to compare MAM and WMI in the echocardiographic assessment of LVEF. In a randomly selected population-based sample of 75-year-old men and women in sinus rhythm (n = 409) MAM, as measured by M-mode, was compared with WMI, calculated as the mean value of wall motion scoring in 9 LV segments. LVEF, as measured by the biplane disc summation method was used as reference. The limits of agreement (mean difference +/- 1.96 SD) between LVEF and corresponding MAM values were -18 to +13 LVEF%, and between LVEF and corresponding WMI values were -12 to +13 LVEF%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for MAM and WMI to predict a LVEF < 50% were 0.892 and 0.998, respectively (95% confidence interval of the difference 0.062-0.149). The corresponding areas for MAM and WMI to predict a LVEF < 40% were 0.955 and 0.998, respectively (95% confidence interval of the difference 0.017-0.069). In conclusion, the ability of WMI to estimate LVEF was more favorable than MAM in this population-based sample of 75-year-old participants. The findings suggest that the WMI is preferable to MAM in estimating LVEF.