The role of analytical performance specifications in international guidelines and standards dealing with metrological traceability in laboratory medicine.

The goal of metrological traceability is to have equivalent results for a measurand in clinical samples (CSs) irrespective of the in-vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD-MD) used for measurements. The International Standards Organization standard 17511 defines requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples used with IVD-MDs. Each step in metrological traceability has an uncertainty associated with the value assigned to a material. The uncertainty at each step adds to the uncertainty from preceding steps such that the combined uncertainty gets larger at each step. The combined uncertainty for a CS result must fulfil an analytical performance specification (APS) for the maximum allowable uncertainty (umax CS). The umax CS can be partitioned among the steps in a metrological traceability calibration hierarachy to derive the APS for maximum allowable uncertainty at each step. Similarly, the criterion for maximum acceptable noncommutability bias can be derived from the umax CS. One of the challenges in determining if umax CS is fulfilled is determining the repeatability uncertainty (u Rw) from operating an IVD-MD within a clinical laboratory. Most of the current recommendations for estimating u Rw from internal quality control data do not use a sufficiently representative time interval to capture all relevant sources of variability in measurement results. Consequently, underestimation of u Rw is common and may compromise assessment of how well current IVD-MDs and their supporting calibration hierarchies meet the needs of clinical care providers.

Recommendations for Setting a Criterion and Assessing Commutability of Sample Materials Used in External Quality Assessment/Proficiency Testing Schemes.

It is important for external quality assessment materials (EQAMs) to be commutable with clinical samples; i.e., they should behave like clinical samples when measured using end-user clinical laboratory in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MDs). Using commutable EQAMs makes it possible to evaluate metrological traceability and/or equivalence of results between IVD-MDs. The criterion for assessing commutability of an EQAM between 2 IVD-MDs is that its result should be within the prediction interval limits based on the statistical distribution of the clinical sample results from the 2 IVD-MDs being compared. The width of the prediction interval is, among other things, dependent on the analytical performance characteristics of the IVD-MDs. A presupposition for using this criterion is that the differences in nonselectivity between the 2 IVD-MDs being compared are acceptable. An acceptable difference in nonselectivity should be small relative to the analytical performance specifications used in the external quality assessment scheme. The acceptable difference in nonselectivity is used to modify the prediction interval criterion for commutability assessment. The present report provides recommendations on how to establish a criterion for acceptable commutability for EQAMS, establish the difference in nonselectivity that can be accepted between IVD-MDs, and perform a commutability assessment. The report also contains examples for performing a commutability assessment of EQAMs.

The evolving role of commutability in metrological traceability.

Commutability is a property of a reference material (RM) which denotes that the analytical response in measurement procedures (MPs) observed for the measurand is the same for the RM as for clinical samples that contain the same amount of the measurand. Matrix-based secondary calibrators are required to be commutable with clinical samples to achieve metrological traceability of results from a clinical laboratory MP to higher order references. Results for clinical samples may not agree among different end-user MPs if a noncommutable RM is used in the calibration hierarchy for one or more of the MPs. Consequently, a useful RM is one that is commutable with clinical samples for all or most MPs in common use. If a matrix-based RM is noncommutable for one or a few MPs, a correction for the noncommutability bias may be added in the calibration hierarchy to enable the results for clinical samples to be metrologically traceable to the RM. Producing a large batch of matrix-based RM requires pooling single donations and making various modifications of the matrix such as spiking with exogenous substances, freezing or lyophilization. These modifications could potentially affect commutability of the RM and compromise its suitability. Documentation of commutability of matrix-based RMs used as calibrators is required by the International Organization for Standardization and the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine. We describe how commutability was recognized as a critical requirement for metrological traceability and we present recommendations from the IFCC Working Groups on Commutability and on Commutability in Metrological Traceability.

Roadmap for harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement procedures.

Results between different clinical laboratory measurement procedures (CLMP) should be equivalent, within clinically meaningful limits, to enable optimal use of clinical guidelines for disease diagnosis and patient management. When laboratory test results are neither standardized nor harmonized, a different numeric result may be obtained for the same clinical sample. Unfortunately, some guidelines are based on test results from a specific laboratory measurement procedure without consideration of the possibility or likelihood of differences between various procedures. When this happens, aggregation of data from different clinical research investigations and development of appropriate clinical practice guidelines will be flawed. A lack of recognition that results are neither standardized nor harmonized may lead to erroneous clinical, financial, regulatory, or technical decisions. Standardization of CLMPs has been accomplished for several measurands for which primary (pure substance) reference materials exist and/or reference measurement procedures (RMPs) have been developed. However, the harmonization of clinical laboratory procedures for measurands that do not have RMPs has been problematic owing to inadequate definition of the measurand, inadequate analytical specificity for the measurand, inadequate attention to the commutability of reference materials, and lack of a systematic approach for harmonization. To address these problems, an infrastructure must be developed to enable a systematic approach for identification and prioritization of measurands to be harmonized on the basis of clinical importance and technical feasibility, and for management of the technical implementation of a harmonization process for a specific measurand.