Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences.

Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests. Awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests; therefore awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. • Clinical Laboratory tests should be performed prior to radiological imaging with contrast media or alternatively, blood or urine collection should be delayed, depending on kidney function.

Standardization of Apolipoprotein B, LDL-Cholesterol, and Non-HDL-Cholesterol.

Concern continues about whether the measurement of apolipoprotein B (apoB) is adequately standardized, and therefore, whether apoB should be applied widely in clinical care. This concern is misplaced. Our objective is to explain why and what the term "standardization" means. To produce clinically valid results, a test must accurately, precisely, and selectively measure the marker of interest. That is, it must be standardized. Accuracy refers to how closely the result obtained with 1 method corresponds to the result obtained with the standard method, precision to how reproducible the result is on repeated testing, and selectivity to how susceptible the method is to error by inclusion of other classes of lipoprotein particles. Multiple expert groups have determined that the measurement of apoB is adequately standardized for clinical care, and that apoB can be measured inexpensively, using widely available automated methods, more accurately, precisely, and selectively than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. ApoB is a standard superior to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol because it is a defined molecule, whereas the cholesterol markers are the mass of cholesterol within lipoprotein particles defined by their density, not by their molecular structure. Nevertheless, the standardization of apoB is being further improved by the application of mass spectrophotometric methods, whereas the limitations in the standardization and, therefore, the accurate, precise, and selective measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are unlikely to be overcome. We submit that greater accuracy, precision, and selectivity in measurement is a decisive advantage for apoB in the modern era of intensive lipid-lowering therapies.

Concordance of apolipoprotein B concentration with the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and Sampson formulas for calculating LDL cholesterol.

INTRODUCTION: Two new formulas, the Martin-Hopkins and the Sampson formula, were recently developed to overcome shortcomings of the Friedewald formula for calculating LDL-cholesterol. We aimed to compare the concordance of the two formulas with apolipoprotein B (apoB), a surrogate marker of the number of LDL particles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a study of serum lipid data of 1179 patients who consulted the AZ St-Jan Hospital Bruges for cardiovascular risk assessment, the correlation and concordance of the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas with apoB concentration, measured by immunonephelometry, were determined and compared. RESULTS: The Martin-Hopkins formula showed significantly higher correlation coefficient than the Friedewald formula with apoB in the entire dataset and in patients with low LDL-cholesterol < 1.8 mmol/L. Both Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas yielded > 70% concordance of LDL-cholesterol with regard to treatment group classification based on population-equivalent thresholds of apoB in hypertriglyceridemic patients (2-4.5 mmol/L), with the highest concordance (75.6%) obtained using Martin-Hopkins formula vs. 60.5% with Friedewald formula. CONCLUSION: The Martin-Hopkins (and, to a lesser extent, Sampson) formula is more closely associated with the number of LDL particles than Friedewald formula. This, in combination with literature evidence of lesser accuracy of the Friedewald formula, is an argument to switch from Friedewald to a modified, improved formula.

How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Guidelines for Cardiac Biomarkers Management in Europe? The CArdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) Study of the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine Task Group on Cardiac Markers.

BACKGROUND: The CARdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) program is a multi-country audit of the use of cardiac biomarkers in routine clinical practice. METHODS: An email link to a web-based questionnaire of 30 multiple-choice questions was distributed via the professional societies in Europe. RESULTS: 374 questionnaires were returned from 39 countries, the majority of which were in northern Europe with a response rate of 8.2%-42.0%. The majority of the respondents were from hospitals with proportionately more responses from central hospitals than district hospitals. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker, evenly split between cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI). Aspartate transaminase and lactate dehydrogenase are no longer offered as cardiac biomarkers. Creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB isoenzyme, and myoglobin continue to be offered as part of the cardiac biomarker profile in approximately on 50% of respondents. There is widespread utilization of high sensitivity (hs) troponin assays. The majority of cTnT users measure hs-cTnT. 29.5% of laboratories measure cTnI by a non-hs method but there has been substantial conversion to hs-cTnI. The majority of respondents used ng/L and use the 99th percentile as the upper reference limit (71.9% of respondents). A range of diagnostic protocols are in use. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread utilization of hs troponin methods. A significant minority do not use the 99th percentile as recommended and there is, as yet, little uptake of very rapid diagnostic strategies. Education of laboratory professionals and clinicians remains a priority.

Update on current practice in laboratory medicine in respect of natriuretic peptide testing for heart failure diagnosis and management in Europe. The CARdiac MArker guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE) study.

BACKGROUND: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) initiated the CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) Study to survey if current biomarker testing for heart failure (HF) in Europe is in accordance with up-dated guidelines. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to clinical laboratories via European biochemical societies in 2019. Questions covered the type of natriuretic peptide (NP) assays performed, decision limits for HF, and opinion concerning requirement of different thresholds in patients with renal failure or obesity. RESULTS: There were 347 participating laboratories mostly from European countries with 266 offering NP testing. NP testing was increased from 67% to 77% between 2013 and 2019. NT-proBNP remained the preferred biomarker. Recommended decision limits were implemented for BNP (85%) and better focused for NT-proBNP (40%) than in the previous survey. The survey revealed that laboratorians are willing to support the translation of adjusted cut-off values for age, gender and for patients with conditions like renal insufficiency. CONCLUSION: Guidelines stimulate clinical laboratories to offer NP testing with high value for the diagnosis and management of HF, and to present adjusted medical decision limits. Future guidelines should encourage the use of personalized cut-offs for some confounding factors.

Non-HDL Cholesterol or apoB: Which to Prefer as a Target for the Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Guidelines propose using non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein (apo) B as a secondary treatment target to reduce residual cardiovascular risk of LDL-targeted therapies. This review summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of using apoB compared with non-HDL cholesterol. RECENT FINDINGS: Non-HDL cholesterol, calculated as total-HDL cholesterol, includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, an additional risk factor independent of LDL cholesterol. ApoB is a direct measure of circulating numbers of atherogenic lipoproteins, and its measurement can be standardized across laboratories worldwide. Discordance analysis of non-HDL cholesterol versus apoB demonstrates that apoB is the more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk. Baseline and on-treatment apoB can identify elevated numbers of small cholesterol-depleted LDL particles that are not reflected by LDL and non-HDL cholesterol. ApoB is superior to non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (175-880 mg/dL), diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome, or very low LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL. When apoB is not available, non-HDL cholesterol should be used to supplement LDLC.

How well do laboratories adhere to recommended guidelines for dyslipidaemia management in Europe? The CArdiac MARker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CAMARGUE) study.

BACKGROUND: The CArdiac MARker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CAMARGUE) initiated by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) aims to survey the current use of evidence-based guidelines for dyslipidemia testing in Europe. METHODS: In 2019 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via EFLM National Societies to clinical laboratories in Europe. Questions covered pre-analytics, analytical methods, measurement units, flagging of decision thresholds, and use of decision-enhancing comments. RESULTS: Returns were obtained from 452 laboratories from 28 countries. Most laboratories always use nonfasting blood samples for lipid assays (66%). Lipid profiles are reported in mmol/L by 59% of the laboratories, mainly from 14 countries promoting the use of SI units. Important differences in flagging of decision thresholds were observed, with less than half of the laboratories applying the guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol threshold. Only 17% of the laboratories add an alert comment when familial hypercholesterolemia is suspected and 23% when risk of pancreatitis from hypertriglyceridemia is high. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences among laboratories in Europe in terms of pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical lipid management that could have an important clinical impact. This relates to different availability of assays or different laboratory practices on reporting and flagging of lipid profiles.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and calculated non-HDL cholesterol (=total - HDL cholesterol) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDL cholesterol is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDL cholesterol shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a)-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDL cholesterol and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDL cholesterol decline poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDL cholesterol includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apolipoprotein B measurement can detect elevated LDL particle numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDL cholesterol alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

Muscle strength is a major determinant of the blood pressure response to isometric stress testing: the Asklepios population study.

AIM: Maximal handgrip strength is a strong predictor of cardiovascular mortality in economically and socioculturally diverse countries, yet the main determinants of cardiovascular response to change in afterload during handgrip are not well known. We examined the blood pressure (BP) responses during submaximal handgrip (at 25% of grip strength) and the determinants of grip strength. METHODS: We studied 2215 participants from a population-based random sample without overt clinical disease (Asklepios Study; mean age 56.2 years). Handgrip testing was performed using a modified Jamar dynamometer with direct visual feedback. Simultaneously, a validated finger plethysmographic device measured continuous BP and heart rate. RESULTS: During handgrip, SBP and DBP rose by, respectively, 20 ±â€Š13 and 10 ±â€Š6 mmHg. These changes were normally distributed and consistently higher in men. The main independent determinants of mean arterial pressure response during handgrip were: grip strength (F = 191.4; P < 0.001), baseline pulse pressure (F = 32.0; P < 0.001), height (F = 16.4; P < 0.001) and age (F = 12.8; P < 0.001). Grip strength was associated with muscle mass, better metabolic health, but also with higher baseline DBP. There was a significant graded increase in maximum pressure achieved and in the magnitude of pressure change during handgrip with increasing BP categories (P for trend <0.001). CONCLUSION: The population BP response to handgrip is variable and its predominant determinant turned out to be grip strength itself, which should be accounted for in future analyses. Higher baseline BP, even within the normotensive range, acted as an independent and graded predictor of BP increase during handgrip.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

Which Lipids Should Be Analyzed for Diagnostic Workup and Follow-up of Patients with Hyperlipidemias?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and discuss the clinical use of lipid and apolipoprotein tests in the settings of diagnosis and therapeutic follow-up of hyperlipidemia. RECENT FINDINGS: The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently produced recommendations on the measurement of atherogenic lipoproteins, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of analytical and clinical performances of the tests. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and calculated non-HDL cholesterol (= LDL + remnant cholesterol) constitute the primary lipid panel for hyperlipidemia diagnosis and cardiovascular risk estimation. LDL cholesterol is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. Non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B should be used as secondary therapeutic target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, 2-10 mmol/l (175-880 mg/dl). Lipoprotein (a) is included in LDL cholesterol and should be measured at least once in all patients at cardiovascular risk, including to explain poor response to statin treatment.

Quantifying Atherogenic Lipoproteins: Current and Future Challenges in the Era of Personalized Medicine and Very Low Concentrations of LDL Cholesterol. A Consensus Statement from EAS and EFLM.

BACKGROUND: The European Atherosclerosis Society-European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Consensus Panel aims to provide recommendations to optimize atherogenic lipoprotein quantification for cardiovascular risk management. CONTENT: We critically examined LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number assays based on key criteria for medical application of biomarkers. (a) Analytical performance: Discordant LDL cholesterol quantification occurs when LDL cholesterol is measured or calculated with different assays, especially in patients with hypertriglyceridemia >175 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) and low LDL cholesterol concentrations <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Increased lipoprotein(a) should be excluded in patients not achieving LDL cholesterol goals with treatment. Non-HDL cholesterol includes the atherogenic risk component of remnant cholesterol and can be calculated in a standard nonfasting lipid panel without additional expense. ApoB more accurately reflects LDL particle number. (b) Clinical performance: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB are comparable predictors of cardiovascular events in prospective population studies and clinical trials; however, discordance analysis of the markers improves risk prediction by adding remnant cholesterol (included in non-HDL cholesterol) and LDL particle number (with apoB) risk components to LDL cholesterol testing. (c) Clinical and cost-effectiveness: There is no consistent evidence yet that non-HDL cholesterol-, apoB-, or LDL particle-targeted treatment reduces the number of cardiovascular events and healthcare-related costs than treatment targeted to LDL cholesterol. SUMMARY: Follow-up of pre- and on-treatment (measured or calculated) LDL cholesterol concentration in a patient should ideally be performed with the same documented test method. Non-HDL cholesterol (or apoB) should be the secondary treatment target in patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia, in whom LDL cholesterol measurement or calculation is less accurate and often less predictive of cardiovascular risk. Laboratories should report non-HDL cholesterol in all standard lipid panels.

Leukocyte telomere length and diet in the apparently healthy, middle-aged Asklepios population.

Telomere length is a prognostic biomarker for aging diseases. As it is unknown whether diet plays a role in these associations, we aimed to assess the impact of diet on telomere length. Moreover, given that telomere length is modulated by oxidative stress and inflammation, an additional goal was to evaluate whether the latter may mediate possible telomere - diet associations. Southern blot measured leukocyte telomere length and food frequency questionnaire data were compared for 2509 apparently healthy men and women (~35 to 55 years) from the Asklepios population. No significant associations were found between telomere length and overall dietary characteristics, such as dietary diversity, quality, equilibrium, and the dietary inflammatory index. Exploratory analysis of individual dietary variables revealed that a higher daily intake of deep fried potato products was associated with shorter telomeres (P = 0.002, 151 bp per 100 g/day), also in both sexes separately. Deep fried potato product consumption was also significantly associated with C-reactive protein (P = 0.032) and uric acid (P = 0.042), but not other inflammation and oxidative stress markers. These results suggest an at most limited association between overall dietary patterns and telomere length in the general population. Nevertheless, the association between telomere length and deep fried potato product intake warrants additional research.

Are Heart Failure Management Recommendations and Guidelines Followed in Laboratory Medicine in Europe and North America? The Cardiac Marker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE) Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to investigate how well heart failure (HF) guidelines for use of natriuretic peptides (NPs) have been implemented in laboratory practice in Europe and North America. METHODS: In 2013 and 2014, a web-based questionnaire was distributed via North American and European biochemical societies. Questions covered assay performed, reason for method choice, decision limits for HF, and laboratory accreditation status. RESULTS: There were 442 European Union and 91 North American participating laboratories with response rates of 50% and 64% from major or university hospitals, respectively. NP measurements were offered in 67% of European Union and 58% of North American respondents. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was most widely used in Europe (68%) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) was more commonly used (58%) in North America. The most frequent reason for use of a specific assay was the availability of instruments that measure either NT-proBNP (51%) or BNP (67%). For diagnosis of acute HF, NT-proBNP decision limits were diverse; age-dependent limits based on the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations were used in only 17% of European sites and 26% of North American sites. For BNP, the guideline-recommended acute HF decision limit of 100 ng/L was better adhered to in Europe (48%) and North America (57%). Surprisingly, similar decision limits were stated for acute and chronic HF by >50% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: NP measurement for HF diagnosis was available in >50% of responding laboratories. However, guideline recommended cutoff values for both acute and chronic HF were still implemented in <30% of participating medical centers.

Could accreditation bodies facilitate the implementation of medical guidelines in laboratories?

Several studies have shown that recommendations related to how laboratory testing should be performed and results interpreted are limited in medical guidelines and that the uptake and implementation of the recommendations that are available need improvement. The EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conducted a survey amongst the national societies for clinical chemistry in Europe regarding development of laboratory-related guidelines. The results showed that most countries have guidelines that are specifically related to laboratory testing; however, not all countries have a formal procedure for accepting such guidelines and few countries have guideline committees. Based on this, the EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conclude that there is still room for improvement regarding these processes in Europe and raise the question if the accreditation bodies could be a facilitator for an improvement.