The importance of verifying manufacturer's claim on specimen stability: An example in serum angiotensin converting enzyme testing.

Appropriate specimen handling is integral to quality and minimizing medical errors. Clinical laboratories often rely on manufacturer's claims for handling specimens, such as sample stability conditions. Serum angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) is an example in which manufacturer claims and stability in the literature is limited. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the importance to verify manufacturer's stability using serum ACE as an example. Serum was collected from 39 healthy volunteers and ACE activity levels measured at baseline, after 4 h, 1, 3, 7 days at room temperature, after 3, 7, and 14 days refrigerated at 4 °C, after 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks frozen at -20 °C, and after three freeze/thaw cycles. An additional 42 discarded patient serum specimens were re-analyzed after 1 or 2 weeks frozen at -20 °C. To evaluate stability performance, percent difference was compared to the clinical acceptance criteria, which was defined as a ½ total allowable error of ±10.9 %. This study found serum ACE to be stable 4 h at room temperature, 14 days refrigerated at 4 °C, up to 1 week frozen at -20 °C, and up to three freeze/thaw cycles. The preferred storage condition for serum ACE is refrigerated at 4 °C as there was minimal change in percent bias over the 14 day period. The false increase observed in samples stored frozen longer than 1 week could impact clinical decision making. The stability findings differed from manufacturer claims, highlighting the importance of verifying stability, especially for esoteric testing such as serum ACE where specimens travel long distances in varying climates to reach centralized testing locations.

Evaluation of Six Commercial Mid- to High-Volume Antibody and Six Point-of-Care Lateral Flow Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Coronavirus disease (COVID) serological tests are essential to determine the overall seroprevalence of a population and to facilitate exposure estimates within that population. We performed a head-to-head assessment of enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and point-of-care lateral flow assays (POCTs) to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. Demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, treatment, and mortality of patients whose sera were used were also reviewed. Six EIAs (Abbott, Affinity, Bio-Rad, DiaSorin, Euroimmun, and Roche) and six POCTs (BTNX, Biolidics, Deep Blue, Genrui, Getein BioTech, and Innovita) were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in known COVID-19-infected individuals. Sensitivity of EIAs ranged from 50 to 100%, with only four assays having overall sensitivities of >95% after 21 days after symptom onset. Notably, cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses (parainfluenza virus [PIV-4] [n = 5], human metapneumovirus [hMPV] [n = 3], rhinovirus/enterovirus [n = 1], CoV-229E [n = 2], CoV-NL63 [n = 2], and CoV-OC43 [n = 2]) was observed; however, overall specificity of EIAs was good (92 to 100%; all but one assay had specificity above 95%). POCTs were 0 to 100% sensitive >21 days after onset, with specificity ranging from 96 to 100%. However, many POCTs had faint banding and were often difficult to interpret. Serology assays can detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as early as 10 days after symptom onset. Serology assays vary in their sensitivity based on the marker (IgA/IgM versus IgG versus total) and by manufacturer; however, overall only 4 EIAs and 4 POCTs had sensitivities of >95% >21 days after symptom onset. Cross-reactivity with other seasonal coronaviruses is of concern. Serology assays should not be used for the diagnosis of acute infection but rather in carefully designed serosurveys to facilitate understanding of seroprevalence in a population and to identify previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

An in vitro comparison of four different immunoassays for the monitoring of Infliximab biosimilars drug levels.

BACKGROUND: SB2 (Renflexis®, Merck) and CT-P13 (Inflectra®, Pfizer) are biosimilars of the reference Infliximab (Remicade®, Janssen) and are approved in Canada for use in indications for which Infliximab is approved, including inflammatory bowel disease. These biosimilars are structurally different but exhibit comparable physicochemical characteristics, pharmaceutical effectiveness and immunogenicity compared to Infliximab. Optimal Infliximab therapy currently relies on therapeutic drug monitoring offered by several reference laboratories. OBJECTIVE: Because the appropriate dosing depends on accurate determination of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies, the ability of current Infliximab assays to measure the biosimilars and corresponding antibodies needs to be demonstrated. METHODS: The correlation between Infliximab and the biosimilars measured with four different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for Infliximab detection was evaluated. Spiked serum samples were assayed with kits from (A) Immunodiagnostik/ALPCO Diagnostics, (B) R-Biopharm, (C) Theradiag and (D) Progenika Biopharma. The impact of various concentrations of antibodies to Infliximab on the quantification of biosimilars was also tested. RESULTS: A good correlation of SB2, CT-P13 and reference Infliximab spiked serum samples was observed with the four assays. The observed bias between the original drug and biosimilars is clinically insignificant and less than the usual analytical variability observed with these methods. The quantification of the biosimilars and Infliximab was equally impacted in serums containing antibodies to Infliximab. The recovery of the drugs was inversely correlated with the concentration of anti-Infliximab antibodies, suggesting common immunodominant epitopes for SB2, CT-P13 and Infliximab. CONCLUSION: The ability of these assays to properly quantify the biosimilars Renflexis® and Inflectra® has been demonstrated. The therapeutic drug monitoring required for Infliximab therapy can be adequately performed with the biosimilars using the kits currently in use or available in clinical laboratories.

Tighter precision target required for lactate testing in patients with lactic acidosis.

BACKGROUND: Allowable analytic errors are generally based on biologic variation in normal, healthy subjects. Some analytes like blood lactate have low concentrations in healthy individuals and resultant allowable variation is large when expressed as a coefficient of variation (CV). In Ricós' compendium of biologic variation, the relative pooled intra-individual lactate variation (si) averages 27% and the desirable imprecision becomes 13.5%. We derived biologic variability (sb) from consecutive patient data and demonstrate that sb of lactate is significantly lower. METHODS: A data repository provided lactate results measured over 18 months in the General Systems intensive care unit (ICU) at the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Canada. In total 54,000 lactate measurements were made on two point-of-care Radiometer 800 blood gas systems operated by Respiratory Therapy. The standard deviations of duplicates (SDD) were tabulated for the intra-patient lactates that were separated by 0-1, 1-2...up to 16 h. The graphs of SDD vs. time interval were approximately linear; the y-intercept provided by the linear regression represents the sum of sb and short-term analytic variation (sa):y0=(sa²+sb²)½. The short-term sa was determined from imprecisions provided by Radiometer and confirmed with onsite controls. The derivation of sb was performed for multiple patient ranges of lactate. RESULTS: The relative desirable lactate imprecision for patients with lactic acidosis is about half that of normal individuals. CONCLUSIONS: As such, evaluations of lactate measurements must use tighter allowable error limits.