Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screening for albuminuria to detect CKD in an early phase has yet to be studied. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two home-based albuminuria population screening methods. METHODS: Towards Home-based Albuminuria Screening (THOMAS) was a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study that invited Dutch adults aged 45-80 years for albuminuria screening. Individuals were randomly assigned (1:1) to screening by applying either a urine collection device (UCD) that was sent by post to a central laboratory for measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) by immunoturbidimetry or to screening via a smartphone application that measures the ACR with a dipstick method at home. Randomisation was done with a four-block method via a web-based system and was stratified by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. If two or more individuals per household were invited to participate, these individuals were randomly assigned to the same group. In case of confirmed increased albuminuria at home, participants were invited for an elaborate screening in a regional hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands) for CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. When abnormalities were found, participants were referred to their general practitioner for treatment. The primary outcomes were the participation rate and yield of the home-based screening and elaborate screening. Participation rate was assessed in the intention-to-screen population (ie, all participants who were invited for the home-based screening or elaborate screening). Yield was assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, all individuals who participated in the home-based screening or elaborate screening). An exploratory analysis assessed the sensitivity and specificity of both home-based screening methods. To this end, an additional quantitative ACR test was performed among people participating in the elaborate screening, and a substudy was performed among participants with a first negative home-based screening test, who were invited for an additional test. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295889. FINDINGS: 15 074 participants were enrolled between Nov 14, 2019, and March 19, 2021. 7552 (50·1%) were randomly assigned to home-based albuminuria screening by the UCD method and 7522 (49·9%) were assigned to albuminuria screening by the smartphone application method. The participation rate of the home-based screening was 4484 (59·4% [95% CI 58·3-60·5]) of the 7552 invited individuals for the UCD method and 3336 (44·3% [43·2-45·5]) of 7522 invited individuals for the smartphone application method (p<0·0001). Increased ACR was confirmed by home-based testing in 150 (3·3% [95% CI 2·9-3·9]) of 4484 individuals for the UCD method and 171 (5·1% [4·4-5·9]) of 3336 indivduals for the smartphone application method. 124 (82·7% [95% CI 75·8-87·9]) of 150 individuals assigned to the UCD method and 142 (83·0% [76·7-87·9]) of 171 participants assigned to the smartphone application method attended the elaborate screening. Sensitivity to detect increased ACR was 96·6% (95% CI 91·5-99·1) for the UCD method and 98·1% (89·9-99·9) for the smartphone application method, and specificity was 97·3% (94·7-98·8) for the UCD method and 67·9% (62·0-73·3) for the smartphone application method, indicating that the test characteristics of only the UCD method were sufficient for screening. Albuminuria, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and decreased kidney function were newly diagnosed in 77 (62·1%), 44 (35·5%), 30 (24·2%), and 27 (21·8%) of 124 participants for the UCD method, respectively. Of the 124 participants assigned to the UCD method who completed elaborate screening, 111 (89·5%) were referred to their general practitioner for treatment because of newly diagnosed CKD or cardiovascular disease risk factors or known risk factors outside the target range. INTERPRETATION: Home-based screening of the general population for increased ACR using a UCD had a high participation rate and correctly identified individuals with increased albuminuria and yet unknown or known but outside target range CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. By contrast, the smartphone application method had a lower at-home participation rate than the UCD method and the test specificity was too low to accurately assess individuals for risk factors during the elaborate screening. The UCD screening strategy could allow for an early start of treatment to prevent progressive kidney function loss and cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD. FUNDING: Dutch Kidney Foundation, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Investigating the Current Harmonization Status of Tumor Markers Using Global External Quality Assessment Programs: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: The harmonization status of most tumor markers (TMs) is unknown. We report a feasibility study performed to determine whether external quality assessment (EQA) programs can be used to obtain insights into the current harmonization status of the tumor markers α-fetoprotein (AFP), prostate specific antigen (PSA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)125, CA15-3 and CA19-9. METHODS: EQA sample results provided by 6 EQA providers (INSTAND [Germany], Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service [KEQAS, South Korea], National Center for Clinical Laboratories [NCCL, China], United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service [UK NEQAS, United Kingdom], Stichting Kwaliteitsbewaking Medische Laboratoriumdiagnostiek [SKML, the Netherlands], and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs [RCPAQAP, Australia]) between 2020 and 2021 were used. The consensus means, calculated from the measurement procedures present in all EQA programs (Abbott Alinity, Beckman Coulter DxI, Roche Cobas, and Siemens Atellica), was used as reference values. Per measurement procedure, the relative difference between consensus mean for each EQA sample and the mean of all patient-pool-based EQA samples were calculated and compared to minimum, desirable, and optimal allowable bias criteria based on biological variation. RESULTS: Between 19040 (CA15-3) and 25398 (PSA) individual results and 56 (PSA) to 76 (AFP) unique EQA samples were included in the final analysis. The mean differences with the consensus mean of patient-pool-based EQA samples for all measurement procedures were within the optimum bias criterion for AFP, the desirable bias for PSA, and the minimum bias criterion for CEA. However, CEA results <8 µg/L exceeded the minimum bias criterion. For CA125, CA15-3, and CA19-9, the harmonization status was outside the minimum bias criterion, with systematic differences identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides relevant information about the current harmonization status of 6 tumor markers. A pilot harmonization investigation for CEA, CA125, CA15-3, and CA19-9 would be desirable.

When bias becomes part of imprecision: how to use analytical performance specifications to determine acceptability of lot-lot variation and other sources of possibly unacceptable bias.

ISO 15189 requires laboratories to estimate the uncertainty of their quantitative measurements and to maintain them within relevant performance specifications. Furthermore, it refers to ISO TS 20914 for instructions on how to estimate the uncertainty and what to take into consideration when communicating uncertainty of measurement with requesting clinicians. These instructions include the responsibility of laboratories to verify that bias is not larger than medically significant. If estimated to be larger than acceptable, such bias first needs to be eliminated or (temporarily) corrected for. In the latter case, the uncertainty of such correction becomes part of the estimation of the total measurement uncertainty. If small enough to be acceptable, bias becomes part of the long term within laboratory random variation. Sources of possible bias are (not limited to) changes in reagent or calibrator lot variation or calibration itself. In this paper we clarify how the rationale and mathematics from an EFLM WG ISO/A position paper on allowable between reagent lot variation can be applied to calculate whether bias can be accepted to become part of long-term imprecision. The central point of this rationale is to prevent the risk that requesting clinicians confuse changes in bias with changes in the steady state of their patients.

To rule-in, or not to falsely rule-out, that is the question: evaluation of hs-cTnT EQA performance in light of the ESC-2020 guideline.

OBJECTIVES: To accurately evaluate non-ST-elevated acute cardiac syndrome (NSTE-ACS), the quality of high-sensitive cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays is of vital importance. The 2020 revision of the NSTE-ACS guideline includes clinical decision-limits (CDL's) to both rule-in and rule-out NSTE-ACS for most commercially available platforms, providing both 0/1 h and 0/2 h delta limits. Our study evaluated whether laboratories are able to meet the analytical performance specifications for imprecision (APS) for hs-cTnT. METHODS: Results from external quality assurance (EQA) in commutable samples were used to evaluate the current and historic performance of analyzers. The performance of analyzers that either passed or failed to comply with 0/1 h-APS were used on a real-world dataset of first hs-cTnT-values to simulate 10.000 samples of t=0, t=1 and t=2 h values with multiple delta's for all relevant CDL's. We compared the simulated values to the input values to obtain the percentage of aberrant results simulated. RESULTS: The majority of analyzers complies with APS for rule-in in 2022 (0/1 h: 90.4 % and 0/2 h: 100 %), compliance for the 0/1 h rule-out is still far from optimal (0/1 h: 30.7 %, 0/2 h: 75.4 %), with improving compliance over the past years (rule-in p=<0.0001, rule-out p=0.011, χ2). Whilst 0/1 h-APS-passing analyzers have a minute risk to falsely rule-out patients whom should be ruled-in (0.0001 %), failing performance increases this risk to 2.1 % upon using 0/1 h CDL's. Here, adopting 0/2 h CDL's is favorable (0.01 %). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories that fail to meet hs-cTnT 0/1 h-APS should improve their performance to the required and achievable level. Until performance is reached clinics should adopt the 0/2 h CDL's.

APS calculator: a data-driven tool for setting outcome-based analytical performance specifications for measurement uncertainty using specific clinical requirements and population data.

OBJECTIVES: According to ISO 15189:2022, analytical performance specifications (APS) should relate to intended clinical use and impact on patient care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web application for laboratory professionals to calculate APS based on a simulation of the impact of measurement uncertainty (MU) on the outcome using the chosen decision limits, agreement thresholds, and data of the population of interest. METHODS: We developed the "APS Calculator" allowing users to upload and select data of concern, specify decision limits and agreement thresholds, and conduct simulations to determine APS for MU. The simulation involved categorizing original measurand concentrations, generating measured (simulated) results by introducing different degrees of MU, and recategorizing measured concentrations based on clinical decision limits and acceptable clinical misclassification rates. The agreements between original and simulated result categories were assessed, and values that met or exceeded user-specified agreement thresholds that set goals for the between-category agreement were considered acceptable. The application generates contour plots of agreement rates and corresponding MU values. We tested the application using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, with decision limits from relevant guidelines. RESULTS: We determined APS for MU of six measurands (blood total hemoglobin, plasma fasting glucose, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total folate) to demonstrate the potential of the application to generate APS. CONCLUSIONS: The developed data-driven web application offers a flexible tool for laboratory professionals to calculate APS for MU using their chosen decision limits and agreement thresholds, and the data of the population of interest.

Abnormal Iron Status and Adverse Outcome After Elective Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Observational Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of preoperative abnormal iron status and its association with packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion, postoperative major complications, and new onset of clinically significant disability in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, observational multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Three cardiac surgical centers in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2021. Recruitment was on hold between March and May 2020 due to COVID-19. PATIENTS: A total of 427 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent elective on-pump cardiac surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint was a 30-day PRBC transfusion. Secondary endpoints were postoperative major complications within 30 days (eg, acute kidney injury, sepsis), and new onset of clinically significant disability within 120 days of surgery. Iron status was evaluated before surgery. Abnormal iron status was present in 45.2% of patients (n = 193), and most frequently the result of iron deficiency (27.4%, n = 117). An abnormal iron status was not associated with PRBC transfusion (adjusted relative risk [ARR] 1.2; 95% CI 0.9-1.8: p = 0.227) or new onset of clinically significant disability (ARR 2.0; 95% CI 0.9-4.6: p = 0.098). However, the risk of postoperative major complications was increased in patients with an abnormal iron status (ARR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.5: p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: An abnormal iron status before elective cardiac surgery was associated with an increased risk of postoperative major complications but not with PRBC transfusion or a new onset of clinically significant disability.

Allergy: Evaluation of 16 years (2007-2022) results of the shared external quality assessment program in Belgium, Finland, Portugal and The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: This paper evaluates 16 year results of the Allergy EQA program shared by EQA organisers in Belgium, Finland, Portugal, and The Netherlands. METHODS: The performance of Thermo Fisher and Siemens user groups (in terms of concordance between both groups, between laboratory CV, prevalence of clinically significant errors) and suitability of samples (stability and validity of dilution of patient samples) are evaluated using data of 192 samples in the EQA programs from 2007 to 2022. Measurands covered are total IgE, screens and mixes, specific IgE extracts and allergen components. RESULTS: There is perfect (53 %), acceptable (40 %) and poor (6 %) concordance between both method groups. In case of poor concordance the best fit with clinical data is seen for Thermo Fisher (56 %) and Siemens (26 %) respectively. The between laboratory CV evolves from 7.8 to 6.6 % (Thermo Fisher) and 7.3 to 7.7 % (Siemens). The prevalence of blunders by individual laboratories is stable for Siemens (0.4 %) and drops from 0.4 to 0.2 % for Thermo Fisher users. For IgE, the between year CV of the mean of both user groups is 1 %, and a fifteen-fold dilution of a patient sample has an impact of 2 and 4 % on the recovery of Thermo Fisher and Siemens user groups. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance of Thermo Fisher is slightly better than that of Siemens users but the clinical impact of this difference is limited. Stability of the sample and the low impact of dilution on the recovery of measurands demonstrates the suitability for purpose of the EQA program.

ISO 15189 is a sufficient instrument to guarantee high-quality manufacture of laboratory developed tests for in-house-use conform requirements of the European In-Vitro-Diagnostics Regulation.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

Albumin determined by bromocresol green leads to erroneous results in routine evaluation of patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: Measurement of plasma albumin is pivotal for clinical decision-making in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Routinely used methods as bromocresol green (BCG) and bromocresol purple (BCP) can suffer from aselectivity, but the impact of aselectivity on the accuracy of plasma albumin results of CKD-patients is still unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of BCG-, BCP- and JCTLM-endorsed immunological methods in patients with various stages of CKD. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of commonly used albumin methods in patients with CKD stages G1 through G5, the latter divided in two groups based on whether they received hemodialysis treatment. In total, 163 patient plasma samples were measured at 14 laboratories, on six different BCG and BCP-platforms, and four different immunological platforms. The results were compared with an ERM-DA-470k-corrected nephelometric assay. The implications on outcome is evaluated by the proportion of patient results <38 g/L for the diagnosis of protein energy wasting. RESULTS: Albumin results determined with BCP- and immunological methods showed the best agreement with the target value (92.7 and 86.2 %, respectively vs. 66.7 % for BCG, namely due to overestimation). The relative agreement of each method with the target value was platform-dependent, with larger variability in agreement between platforms noted for BCG and immunological methods (3.2-4.6 and 2.6-5.3 %) as opposed to BCP (0.7-1.5 %). The stage of CKD had similar effects on the variability in agreement for the three method-groups (0.6-1.8 % vs. 0.7-1.5 % vs. 0.4-1.6 %). The differences between methods cause discrepancies in clinical decision-making, as structurally fewer patients were diagnosed with protein energy wasting upon using BCG-based albumin results. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that BCP is fit for the intended use to measure plasma albumin levels in CKD patients from all stages, including patients on hemodialysis. In contrast, most BCG-based platforms falsely overestimate the plasma albumin concentration.

Serum albumin measurement in nephrology: room for improvement.

Serum albumin is a widely used biomarker in clinical nephrology. Serum albumin cut-off values are used to define disease, to predict outcome and to guide patient care. The available commercial assays to measure serum albumin rely on different analytical principles, all with their own (analytical) specifications. This article provides an overview of the different clinical applications of serum albumin measurements in nephrology, the (dis)advantages of the available assays and the estimates of the effects of the measurement uncertainty between different assays in clinical decision making. This article concludes that harmonization of serum albumin assay results is needed.

An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation.

Clinicians trust medical laboratories to provide reliable results on which they rely for clinical decisions. Laboratories fulfil their responsibility for accurate and consistent results by utilizing an arsenal of approaches, ranging from validation and verification experiments to daily quality control procedures. All these procedures verify, on different moments, that the results of a certain examination procedure have analytical performance characteristics (APC) that meet analytical performance specifications (APS) set for a particular intended use. The APC can in part be determined by estimating the measurement uncertainty component under conditions of within-laboratory precision (uRw), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence uRw is the momentary significant bias caused by shifts in reagent and/or calibrator lots, which, when accepted or unnoticed, become a factor of the APC. In this paper, we postulate a model for allocating a part of allowable uRw to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots.

External quality assessment providers' services appear to more impact the immunohaematology performance of laboratories than national regulatory and economic conditions.

OBJECTIVES: Medical laboratories may, at their own discretion, exceed but not undercut regulatory quality requirements. Available economic resources, however, may drive or hinder eagerness to exceed minimum requirements. Depending on the respective scopes of regulatory and economic framework conditions, differing levels of quality efforts to safeguard laboratory performance can be anticipated. However, this has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Immunohaematology external quality assessment (EQA) results collected by 26 EQA providers from their participant laboratories in 73 countries from 2004 to 2019 were evaluated. Error rates were aggregated in groups according to the respective national regulatory and economic framework conditions, to whether or not expert advice was provided in case of incorrect results, and the frequency of EQA samples. RESULTS: These representative data indicate no association between national regulatory (mandatory participation in EQA, monitoring of performance of individual laboratories by authorities, financial consequences of incorrect results) and economic (level of national income, share of national health expenditure) conditions to the quality performance of medical laboratories in immunohaematology. However, EQA providers' support for laboratories in the event of incorrect results appear to be associated with lower error rates, but a high EQA sample frequency with higher error rates. CONCLUSIONS: Further research into the impact of introducing or changing services of EQA providers is needed to confirm the results found in this first of its kind study.

Harmonization status of procalcitonin measurements: what do comparison studies and EQA schemes tell us?

Sepsis represents a global health priority because of its high mortality and morbidity. The key to improving prognosis remains an early diagnosis to initiate appropriate antibiotic treatment. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a recognized biomarker for the early indication of bacterial infections and a valuable tool to guide and individualize antibiotic treatment. To meet the increasing demand for PCT testing, numerous PCT immunoassays have been developed and commercialized, but results have been questioned. Many comparison studies have been carried out to evaluate analytical performance and comparability of results provided by the different commercially available immunoassays for PCT, but results are conflicting. External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS) for PCT constitute another way to evaluate results comparability. However, when making this comparison, it must be taken into account that the variety of EQA materials consist of different matrices, the commutability of which has not yet been investigated. The present study gathers results from all published comparison studies and results from 137 EQAS surveys to describe the current state-of-the-art harmonization of PCT results. Comparison studies globally highlight a significant variability of measurement results that nonetheless seem to have a moderate impact on medical decision-making. For their part, EQAS for PCT provides highly discrepant estimates of the interlaboratory CV. Due to differences in commutability of the EQA materials, the results from different peer groups could not be compared. To improve the informative value of the EQA data, the existing limitations such as non-harmonized conditions and suboptimal and/or unknown commutability of the EQA materials have to be overcome. The study highlights the need for commutable reference materials that could be used to properly evaluate result comparability and possibly standardize calibration, if necessary. Such an initiative would further improve the safe use of PCT in clinical routine.

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at the emergency department using routine testing.

Objectives: The novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, spreads rapidly across the world. The exponential increase in the number of cases has resulted in overcrowding of emergency departments (ED). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is based on an RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swab material. However, RT-PCR testing is time-consuming and many hospitals deal with a shortage of testing materials. Therefore, we aimed to develop an algorithm to rapidly evaluate an individual's risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the ED. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, routine laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte counts), demographic data and the chest X-ray/CT result from 967 patients entering the ED with respiratory symptoms were collected. Using these parameters, an easy-to-use point-based algorithm, called the corona-score, was developed to discriminate between patients that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and those testing negative. Computational sampling was used to optimize the corona-score. Validation of the model was performed using data from 592 patients. Results: The corona-score model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 in the validation population. Patients testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 showed a median corona-score of 3 vs. 11 (scale 0-14) in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p<0.001). Using cut-off values of 4 and 11 the model has a sensitivity and specificity of 96 and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: The corona-score effectively predicts SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR outcome based on routine parameters. This algorithm provides the means for medical professionals to rapidly evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection status of patients presenting at the ED with respiratory symptoms.

Validation and verification of examination procedures in medical laboratories: opinion of the EFLM Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO) on dealing with ISO 15189:2012 demands for method verification and validation.

This paper reflects the opinion of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO). It aims to provide guidance for drawing up local/national documents about validation and verification of laboratory methods. We demonstrate how risk evaluation can be used to optimize laboratory policies to meet intended use requirements as well as requirements of standards. This is translated in a number of recommendations on how to introduce risk evaluation in various stages of the implementation of new methods ultimately covering the whole process cycle.

Quality Monitoring of a FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment is crucial for consistent program performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs using fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). However, literature on the consistency of FIT performance in laboratory medicine was lacking. This study examined the consistency of FIT in testing positive or detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) for different specimen collection devices, lot reagents, and laboratories. METHODS: All participants with a FIT sample with a cutoff concentration of 47 µg Hb/g feces in the Dutch CRC screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included in the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds ratios of collection devices, reagents, and laboratories on testing positive or detecting AN and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: In total, 87519 (6.4%) of the 1371169 participants tested positive. Positivity rates and detection rates of AN differed between collection devices and reagents (all P < 0.01). In contrast, PPVs were not found to vary between collection devices, reagents, or laboratories (all P > 0.05). Positivity rates showed a small difference for laboratories (P = 0.004) but not for detection rates of AN. Size of the population affected by the deviating positivity rates was small (0.1% of the total tested population). CONCLUSIONS: Variations were observed in positivity and detection rates between collection devices and reagents, but there was no detected variation in PPV. Although the overall population effect of these variations on the screened population is expected to be modest, there is room for improvement.

Fast 0/1-h algorithm for detection of NSTEMI: are current high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays fit for purpose? An EQA-based evaluation.

Background High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T/I (hs-cTnT/I) assays have improved analytical sensitivity for the detection of myocardial infarction (MI). To gain clinical specificity and sensitivity, interpretation of changes in cTn concentrations over time is crucial. The 2015 ESC NSTEMI guideline defines absolute delta values as additional rule-in and rule-out criteria for MI. A critical assumption for application of this rule is that total analytical imprecision within the delta period, including inter-instrument bias, is comparable to analytical imprecision in the validation studies. Methods Data from the Dutch External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) were used to calculate inter-instrument bias and estimate imprecision for the measuring range where the proposed delta values are relevant: for Roche Elecsys hs-cTnT, 5-52 and 5-12 ng/L; for Abbott Architect hs-cTnI, 2-52 and 2-5 ng/L for rule-in and rule-out, respectively. Results For Elecsys, the median inter-instrument bias is 0.3 ng/L (n = 33 laboratories), resulting in reference change values (RCVs) of 3.0 and 1.7 ng/L, respectively, for rule-in and rule-out with imprecision as claimed by the manufacturer. With RCVs smaller than the guideline's delta thresholds, 100% of the laboratories have adequate specifications. RCVs for rule-in/rule-out increased to 4.6 ng/L/2.5 ng/L, respectively, with individual imprecisions as estimated from EQA data, resulting in 64% and 82% of laboratories with adequate specifications. For Architect, 40% of instruments (n = 10) might falsely qualify the result as clinically relevant; hence, inter-instrument bias could not be determined. Conclusions We advise laboratories that use the fast 0/1-h algorithm to introduce stringent internal quality procedures at the relevant/low concentration level, especially when multiple analyzers are randomly used.

Documenting metrological traceability as intended by ISO 15189:2012: A consensus statement about the practice of the implementation and auditing of this norm element.

ISO15189:2012 requires medical laboratories to document metrological traceability of their results. While the ISO17511:2003 standard on metrological traceability in laboratory medicine requires the use of the highest available level in the traceability chain, it recognizes that for many measurands there is no reference above the manufacturer's selected measurement procedure and the manufacturer's working calibrator. Some immunoassays, although they intend to measure the same quantity and may even refer to the same reference material, unfortunately produce different results because of differences in analytical selectivity as manufacturers select different epitopes and antibodies for the same analyte. In other cases, the cause is the use of reference materials, which are not commutable. The uncertainty associated with the result is another important aspect in metrological traceability implementation. As the measurement uncertainty on the clinical samples is influenced by the uncertainty of all steps higher in the traceability chain, laboratories should be provided with adequate and appropriate information on the uncertainty of the value assignment to the commercial calibrators that they use. Although the between-lot variation in value assignment will manifest itself as part of the long-term imprecision as estimated by the end-user, information on worst-case to be expected lot-lot variation has to be communicated to the end-user by the IVD provider. When laboratories use ancillary equipment that potentially could have a critical contribution to the reported results, such equipment needs verification of its proper calibration and criticality to the result uncertainty could be assessed by an approach based on risk analysis, which is a key element of ISO15189:2012 anyway. This paper discusses how the requirement for metrological traceability as stated in ISO15189 should be met by the medical laboratory and how this should be assessed by accreditation bodies.

NUMBER: standardized reference intervals in the Netherlands using a 'big data' approach.

Background External quality assessment (EQA) programs for general chemistry tests have evolved from between laboratory comparison programs to trueness verification surveys. In the Netherlands, the implementation of such programs has reduced inter-laboratory variation for electrolytes, substrates and enzymes. This allows for national and metrological traceable reference intervals, but these are still lacking. We have initiated a national endeavor named NUMBER (Nederlandse UniforMe Beslisgrenzen En Referentie-intervallen) to set up a sustainable system for the determination of standardized reference intervals in the Netherlands. Methods We used an evidence-based 'big-data' approach to deduce reference intervals using millions of test results from patients visiting general practitioners from clinical laboratory databases. We selected 21 medical tests which are either traceable to SI or have Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference materials and/or reference methods. Per laboratory, per test, outliers were excluded, data were transformed to a normal distribution (if necessary), and means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated. Then, average means and SDs per test were calculated to generate pooled (mean±2 SD) reference intervals. Results were discussed in expert meetings. Results Sixteen carefully selected clinical laboratories across the country provided anonymous test results (n=7,574,327). During three expert meetings, participants found consensus about calculated reference intervals for 18 tests and necessary partitioning in subcategories, based on sex, age, matrix and/or method. For two tests further evaluation of the reference interval and the study population were considered necessary. For glucose, the working group advised to adopt the clinical decision limit. Conclusions Using a 'big-data' approach we were able to determine traceable reference intervals for 18 general chemistry tests. Nationwide implementation of these established reference intervals has the potential to improve unequivocal interpretation of test results, thereby reducing patient harm.