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.

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.

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.

Organisation and quality monitoring for point-of-care testing (POCT) in Belgium: proposal for an expansion of the legal framework for POCT into primary health care.

BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards decentralisation of laboratory tests by means of Point-of-Care testing (POCT). Within hospitals, Belgian law requires a POCT policy, coordinated by the clinical laboratory. There is however no legal framework for POCT performed outside the hospital: no reimbursement, no compulsory quality monitoring and no limits nor control on the prices charged to the patient. Uncontrolled use of POCT can have negative consequences for individual and public health. PROPOSAL: We propose that POCT outside hospitals would only be reimbursed for tests carried out within a legal framework, requiring evidence-based testing and collaboration with a clinical laboratory, because clinical laboratories have procedures for test validation and quality monitoring, are equipped for electronic data transfer, are familiar with logistical processes, can provide support when technical issues arise and can organise and certify training. Under these conditions the government investment will be offset by health benefits, e.g. fall in antibiotic consumption with POCT for CRP in primary care, quick response to SARS-CoV2-positive cases in COVID-19 triage centres. PRIORITIES: 1° extension of the Belgian decree on certification of clinical laboratories to decentralised tests in primary care; 2° introduction of a separate reimbursement category for POCT; 3° introduction of reimbursement for a limited number of specified POCT; 4° setup of a Multidisciplinary POCT Advisory Council, the purpose of which is to draw up a model for reimbursement of POCT, to select tests eligible for reimbursement and to make proposals to the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (RIZIV/INAMI).

Implementation of the new EU IVD regulation - urgent initiatives are needed to avert impending crisis.

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".

Improving the laboratory result release process in the light of ISO 15189:2012 standard.

The ISO 15189:2012 standard section 5.9.1 requires laboratories to review results before release, considering quality control, previous results, and clinical information, if any, and to issue documented procedures about it. While laboratory result reporting is generally regarded as part of the post-analytical phase, the result release process requires a general view of the total examination process. Reviewing test results may follow with troubleshooting and test repetition, including reanalyzing an individual sample or resampling. A systematic understanding of the result release may help laboratory professionals carry out appropriate test repetition and ensure the plausibility of laboratory results. In this paper, we addressed the crucial steps in the result release process, including evaluation of sample quality, critical result notification, result reporting, and recommendations for the management of the result release, considering quality control alerts, instrument flags, warning messages, and interference indexes. Error detection tools and plausibility checks mentioned in the present paper can support the daily practice of results release.

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.

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.

Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories.

This document is based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). This document summarizes proposals for recommendations on: (i) The terminology, which is often confusing, noticeably concerning the terms of reference limits and decision limits. (ii) The method for the determination of reference limits according to the original procedure and the conditions, which should be used. (iii) A simple procedure allowing the medical laboratories to fulfill the requirements of the regulation and standards. The updated document proposes to verify that published reference limits are applicable to the laboratory involved. Finally, the strengths and limits of the revised recommendations (especially the selection of the reference population, the maintenance of the analytical quality, the choice of the statistical method used…) will be briefly discussed.

Accreditation process in European countries - an EFLM survey.

BACKGROUND: Accreditation is a valuable resource for medical laboratories. The development of quality systems based on ISO 15189 has taken place in many laboratories in the European countries but data about accreditation remain scarce. The EFLM Working Group "Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards" conducted a survey that reviews the current state of the accreditation process in European countries. METHODS: An on-line questionnaire was addressed to delegates of 39 EFLM scientific societies in March 2014. One answer by country was taken into account. The survey was dealing with mandatory status, number of accredited medical laboratories in each country, possibility of flexible scope and concerned medical fields. The status of point-of-care testing (POCT) in each country was also studied. RESULTS: Twenty-nine responses (74%) were registered. All the assessed countries (100%) have begun an accreditation process in various ways. All the national accreditation bodies (NAB) offer or are working to offer an ISO 15189 accreditation. The accreditation process most often concerns all phases of the examination and various medical fields. Medical laboratories are responsible for POCT in 20 (69%) countries. The accreditation process for POCT, according to ISO 15189 and ISO 22870, is also developing. CONCLUSIONS: While there are several variations in the approaches to accreditation of medical laboratories in the European countries, the ISO 15189 accreditation project has been widely accepted. The use of a unique standard and the cooperation among countries due to scientific societies, EFLM, accreditation bodies and EA enable laboratory professionals to move toward uniform implementation of the accreditation concept.

Performance of strip-based glucose meters and cassette-based blood gas analyzer for monitoring glucose levels in a surgical intensive care setting.

BACKGROUND: We verified the analytical performance of strip-based handheld glucose meters (GM) for prescription use, in a comparative split-sample protocol using blood gas samples from a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Freestyle Precision Pro (Abbott), StatStrip Connectivity Meter (Nova), ACCU-CHEK Inform II (Roche) were evaluated for recovery/linearity, imprecision/repeatability. The GMs and the ABL90 (Radiometer) blood gas analyzer (BGA) were tested for relative accuracy vs. the comparator hexokinase glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase (HK/G6PDH) assay on a Cobas c702 analyzer (Roche). RESULTS: Recovery of spiked glucose was linear up to 19.3 mmol/L (347 mg/dL) with a slope of 0.91-0.94 for all GMs. Repeatability estimated by pooling duplicate measurements on samples below (n=9), in (n=51) or above (n=80) the 4.2-5.9 mM (74-106 mg/dL) range were for Freestyle Precision Pro: 4.2%, 4.0%, 3.6%; StatStrip Connectivity Meter: 4.0%, 4.3%, 4.5%; and ACCU-CHEK Inform II: 1.4%, 2.5%, 3.5%. GMs were in agreement with the comparator method. The BGA outperformed the GMs, with a MARD of 3.9% compared to 6.5%, 5.8% and 4.4% for the FreeStyle, StatStrip and ACCU-CHEK, respectively. Zero % of the BGA results deviated more than the FDA 10% criterion as compared to 9.4%, 3.7% and 2.2% for the FreeStyle, StatStrip and ACCU-CHEK, respectively. For all GMs, icodextrin did not interfere. Variation in the putative influence factors hematocrit and O2 tension could not explain observed differences with the comparator method. CONCLUSIONS: GMs quantified blood glucose in whole blood at about the 10% total error criterion, proposed by the FDA for prescription use.

Flexible scope for ISO 15189 accreditation: a guidance prepared by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO).

The recent revision of ISO15189 has further strengthened its position as the standard for accreditation for medical laboratories. Both for laboratories and their customers it is important that the scope of such accreditation is clear. Therefore the European co-operation for accreditation (EA) demands that the national bodies responsible for accreditation describe the scope of every laboratory accreditation in a way that leaves no room for doubt about the range of competence of the particular laboratories. According to EA recommendations scopes may be fixed, mentioning every single test that is part of the accreditation, or flexible, mentioning all combinations of medical field, examination type and materials for which the laboratory is competent. Up to now national accreditation bodies perpetuate use of fixed scopes, partly by inertia, partly out of fear that a too flexible scope may lead to over-valuation of the competence of laboratories, most countries only use fixed scopes. The EA however promotes use of flexible scopes, since this allows for more readily innovation, which contributes to quality in laboratory medicine. In this position paper, the Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN Standards belonging to the Quality and Regulation Committee of the EFLM recommends using an approach that has led to successful introduction of the flexible scope for ISO15189 accreditation as intended in EA-4/17 in The Netherlands. The approach is risk-based, discipline and competence-based, and focuses on defining a uniform terminology transferable across the borders of scientific disciplines, laboratories and countries.

Current evidence and future perspectives on the effective practice of patient-centered laboratory medicine.

BACKGROUND: Systematic evidence of the contribution made by laboratory medicine to patient outcomes and the overall process of healthcare is difficult to find. An understanding of the value of laboratory medicine, how it can be determined, and the various factors that influence it is vital to ensuring that the service is provided and used optimally. CONTENT: This review summarizes existing evidence supporting the impact of laboratory medicine in healthcare and indicates the gaps in our understanding. It also identifies deficiencies in current utilization, suggests potential solutions, and offers a vision of a future in which laboratory medicine is used optimally to support patient care. SUMMARY: To maximize the value of laboratory medicine, work is required in 5 areas: (a) improved utilization of existing and new tests; (b) definition of new roles for laboratory professionals that are focused on optimizing patient outcomes by adding value at all points of the diagnostic brain-to-brain cycle; (c) development of standardized protocols for prospective patient-centered studies of biomarker clinical effectiveness or extraanalytical process effectiveness; (d) benchmarking of existing and new tests in specified situations with commonly accepted measures of effectiveness; (e) agreed definition and validation of effectiveness measures and use of checklists for articles submitted for publication. Progress in these areas is essential if we are to demonstrate and enhance the value of laboratory medicine and prevent valuable information being lost in meaningless data. This requires effective collaboration with clinicians, and a determination to accept patient outcome and patient experience as the primary measure of laboratory effectiveness.

Performance of cassette-based blood gas analyzers to monitor blood glucose and lactate levels in a surgical intensive care setting.

BACKGROUND: With the use of a traditional blood gas analyzer (BGA) (ABL800 Radiometer) for blood glucose monitoring, tight glucose control (TGC) reduced in-hospital mortality and morbidity of surgical intensive care unit (ICU) adult and pediatric patients. Such BGAs are now superseded by cassette-based BGAs. We assessed the analytical reliability of cassette-based BGAs to monitor patient's metabolic status in an ICU setting. METHODS: We evaluated recovery/linearity, imprecision/repeatability and relative accuracy vs. comparison methods for glucose [coupled hexokinase glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (HK/G6PD) assay] and lactate (lactate dehydrogenase assay) in ICU patient samples with two cassette-based BGAs [RP500 (Siemens) and ABL90 (Radiometer)] and with the ABL800 BGA. RESULTS: Recovery of spiked glucose up to 348 mg/dL (19.3 mmol/L) was complete for all BGAs. Repeatability of ABL800 and ABL90 was comparable with the comparison method (about 1%), but higher for RP500 (about 2.4%). All BGAs were in agreement with the comparison method, with all glucose measurements falling within preset 10% criteria suggested by Karon. Recovery of spiked lactate (up to 25 mmol/L) was incomplete at all levels. Repeatability of ABL800 and ABL90 was comparable with the comparison method (about 4%), and 5.5% for RP500. All BGAs were in agreement with the comparison method, with >98% of the lactate measurements falling within 30% biological-variation-based criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The cassette-based BGAs quantified blood glucose and lactate levels in ICU patients within the acceptable error ranges. Cassette-based BGAs can be used for monitoring patient's metabolic status in an ICU setting.

A safety study on single intravenous dose of tetrachloro-diphenyl glycoluril [iodogen] dissolved in dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO).

1. Iodogen (tetrachloro-diphenyl glycoluril) dissolved in DMSO (dimethyl sulphoxide) appears indispensable in radioiodination of hypericin for a new anticancer strategy. We studied the safety of intravenously administered iodogen/DMSO in mice (n = 132). 2. Median lethal dose (LD50) of iodogen/DMSO was determined with doses of 40.0, 50.0, 55.0, 60.0, 65.0 and 70.0 mg/kg. Next, toxicity of iodogen/DMSO at 30.0 mg/kg was evaluated using saline and DMSO as controls. Changes in behaviour, body weight and serum biochemistry were evaluated. Histopathology of lungs, heart, liver and kidney was performed. 3. LD50 values of iodogen/DMSO were 59.5 mg/kg (95% confidence limits (CI): 54.1-65.4 mg/kg) and 61.0 mg/kg (95%CI: 56.2-66.2 mg/kg) for female and male mice, respectively. Similar to that of control groups, no animal deaths were encountered after iodogen/DMSO administration at 30.0 mg/kg. Body weights over 24 h were not altered in all groups, but significantly higher in iodogen/DMSO and DMSO groups (p < 0.05) 14 d post-injection. Blood urea nitrogen and alkaline phosphatase increased (p < 0.05) in iodogen/DMSO group without clinical symptoms. No pathologies were found by gross and microscopic inspection. 4. A single dose of iodogen/DMSO up to 30.0 mg/kg, over 3000 times the dose in potential human applications, appears safe, with an LD50 doubling that dose in mice.