Lot verification practices in Ontario clinical chemistry laboratories - Results of a patterns-of-practice survey.

Objectives: Verifying new reagent or calibrator lots is crucial for maintaining consistent test performance. The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) conducted a patterns-of-practice survey and follow-up case study to collect information on lot verification practices in Ontario. Methods: The survey had 17 multiple-choice questions and was distributed to 183 licensed laboratories. Participants provided information on materials used and approval/rejection criteria for their lot verification procedures for eight classes of testing systems. The case study provided a set of lot comparison data and was distributed to 132 laboratories. Responses were reviewed by IQMH scientific committees. Results: Of the 175 laboratories that responded regarding reagent lot verifications, 74% verified all tests, 11% some, and 15% none. Of the 171 laboratories that responded regarding calibrator lot verifications, 39% verified all calibrators, 4% some, and 57% none. Reasons for not performing verifications ranged from difficulty performing parallel testing to high reagent cost. For automated chemistry assays and immunoassays, 23% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in reagent lot verifications and 42% included five to six patient materials; 58% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in calibrator lot verifications and 23% included five to six patient materials. Different combinations of test-specific rules were used for acceptance criteria. For a failed lot, 98% of laboratories would investigate further and take corrective actions. Forty-three percent of laboratories would accept the new reagent lot in the case study. Conclusion: Responses to the survey and case study demonstrated variability in lot verification practices among laboratories.

Comparison of fixed cell-based assay to radioimmunoprecipitation assay for acetylcholine receptor antibody detection in myasthenia gravis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare specificity and sensitivity of a commercially available fixed cell-based assay (F-CBA) to radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) for acetylcholine receptor antibody (anti-AChR) detection in myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: In this retrospective diagnostic cohort study we reviewed the clinical information of suspected MG patients evaluated at the London Health Sciences Centre MG clinic who had anti-AChR RIPA and then F-CBA performed, in order to classify them as MG or non-MG. Classification of each patient as anti-AChR F-CBA-negative/positive, RIPA-negative/positive, and MG/non-MG permitted specificity and sensitivity calculations for each assay. RESULTS: Six-hundred-eighteen patients were included in study analysis. The median patient age at time of sample collection was 45.8 years (range: 7.5-87.5 years) and 312/618 (50.5%) were female. Of 618 patients, 395 (63.9%) were classified as MG. Specificity of both F-CBA and RIPA was excellent (99.6% vs. 100%, P > 0.99). One F-CBA-positive patient was classified as non-MG, although in retrospect ocular MG with functional overlay was challenging to exclude. Sensitivity of F-CBA was significantly higher than RIPA (76.7% vs. 72.7%, P = 0.002). Overall, 20/97 (21%) otherwise seronegative MG (SNMG) patients after RIPA evaluation had anti-AChR detected by F-CBA. CONCLUSIONS: In our study anti-AChR F-CBA and RIPA both had excellent specificity, while F-CBA had 4% higher sensitivity for MG and detected anti-AChR in 21% of SNMG patients. Our findings indicate that F-CBA is a viable alternative to RIPA for anti-AChR detection. Prospective studies comparing F-CBA, RIPA and L-CBA are needed to determine optimal anti-AChR testing algorithms in MG.

Survey of renin and aldosterone testing practices by Ontario laboratories - Providing insight into best practices.

OBJECTIVES: Testing for renin and aldosterone in clinical laboratories is complicated by pre-analytical considerations such as the posture for blood collection and susceptibility to cryoactivation of renin. From an analytical perspective, there are both renin activity and renin mass or concentration assays available. There can also be variability in result reporting practices and the aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR) cut-off applied to screen for primary aldosteronism (PA). The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) Centre for Proficiency Testing surveyed laboratories on their handling of renin and aldosterone testing to better understand current practices. DESIGN AND METHODS: An online survey was prepared and sent to 134 Canadian laboratories enrolled in endocrinology proficiency testing with IQMH. RESULTS: One hundred twenty Ontario laboratories submitted responses. While only six (5%) laboratories perform testing for both renin and aldosterone, 108 (90%) collect and process specimens to be tested by reference laboratories. The survey revealed considerable variation in practices including the recommended state of patients prior to sample collection (for example, regarding medications or salt intake), the patient posture specifications for sample collection, the precautions taken against cryoactivation of renin, the choice of renin activity or mass assay, and the ARR cut-off used. The available literature on these factors was then reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no standardized procedure for specimen collection, analysis, or result reporting for renin or aldosterone testing, we have attempted to summarize the available literature to develop evidence-based recommendations. Where laboratory practice differs from peers and/or recommended protocols, laboratories should review their practices.

Neural Antibody Testing for Autoimmune Encephalitis: A Canadian Single-Centre Experience.

Neural antibodies have emerged as useful biomarkers in suspected autoimmune encephalitis. We reviewed results of neural antibody testing (anti-N-methyl D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), leucine-rich glioma-inactivated protein (LGI1), contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2), α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor (AMPAR), γ-aminobutyric acid type B receptor (GABA(B)R), dipeptidyl-peptidase-like protein-6 (DPPX), IgLON family member 5 (IgLON5) and glutamic acid decarboxylase-65 (GAD65)) using cell-based assays (CBAs) and tissue indirect immunofluorescence (TIIF) at our centre. Our findings suggest increased clinical sensitivity of CBA compared to TIIF. However, this may come at some expense to clinical specificity, as evidenced by possible false-positive results when weak serum positivity by CBA was observed for certain antibodies (i.e. anti-NMDAR, CASPR2). In such cases, correlation with serum TIIF, as well as CSF CBA and TIIF, aids in identifying true-positive results.