“Harmonization of laboratory testing — A global activity”

C-Reactive Protein and Brain Natriuretic Peptides Harmonization

The harmonization of laboratory biomarkers is pivotal in ensuring consistent and reliable diagnostic outcomes across different clinical settings. This systematic review examines the harmonization of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and N-Terminal Prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements, both of which are jointly utilized in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases. To identify relevant studies, we searched the PubMed electronic database using specific medical subject headings and keywords such as C-Reactive Protein, CRP, high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and NT-proBNP, focusing on publications from June 1 to September 26, 2021. The query filtered studies to include only those in English involving human subjects. From our search, 97 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included for in-depth analysis. Despite their widespread use, significant variability remains in the measurements of CRP and NT-proBNP due to a lack of standardized pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical practices. This review highlights the consequences of this variability on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes and emphasizes the need for international standards and guidelines to achieve better harmonization. Our findings advocate for the establishment of universal protocols to enhance the reliability of these biomarker measurements across different clinical environments, ensuring improved healthcare delivery.

Longitudinal evaluation of external quality assessment results for CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125

Background

Tumor markers are established laboratory tools that help to diagnose, estimate prognosis, and monitor the course of cancer. For meaningful decision-making in patient care, it is essential that methods and analytical platforms demonstrate high sensitivity, specificity, precision, and comparability. Regular participation at external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is mandatory for laboratories. Here, a longitudinal evaluation of EQA data was performed to assess the performance of tumor marker assays over time.

Methods

Longitudinal data of the cancer antigens (CA) 15-3 (n = 5,492), CA 19-9 (n = 6,802), and CA 125 (n = 5,362) from 14 INSTAND EQAs conducted between 2019 and 2023 were evaluated. A median of 197, 244 and 191 laboratories participated at the EQAs for CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125, respectively. Data evaluation encompasses intra- and inter-manufacturer specific variations over time, assay precision, and adherence to the EQA limits of ±24% for CA 15-3, ±27% for CA 19-9 and ±36% for CA 125.

Results

The study showed median manufacturer-dependent differences of up to 107% for CA 15-3, 99% for CA 125, and even 549% for CA 19-9 between the highest and the lowest methods over the studied period. Regarding the normalized median of all methods, the values of the most deviant methods were 0.42 for CA 15-3, 7.61 for CA 19-9, and 1.82 for CA 125. Intra-manufacturer variability was generally low, with median coefficients of variation (CV) below 10%. As the methods were evaluated according to method-specific consensus values, most participants passed the EQAs within the acceptance criteria. When the criteria were consistently set at 24%, the central 90% of participants passed the EQAs in 78.6%-100% for CA 15-3 (with exception of AX), 89.3%-100% for CA 125, and 64.3%-100% for CA 19-9.

Conclusion

While intra-method precision of most analytical platforms is acceptable for all three tumor markers, considerable inter-method variability was observed over the whole studied period demonstrating the necessity for better standardization and harmonization of the methods, development of international reference materials, and comprehensive commutability studies with patient samples.

The harmonization issue in laboratory medicine: the commitment of CCLM

The analytical quality of the clinical laboratory results has shown a significant improvement over the past decades, thanks to the joint efforts of different stakeholders, while the comparability among the results produced by different laboratories and methods still presents some critical issues. During these years, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) published several papers on the harmonization issue over all steps in the Total Testing Process, training an important number of laboratory professionals in evaluating and monitoring all the criticisms inherent to the pre-analytical, as well as analytical and post analytical phases: from the consensus statement on the most informative testing in emergency setting, to the prevention and detection of hemolysis or to patients identification and tube labeling procedures, as far as to different approaches to harmonize hormones measurements or to describe new reference methods or to harmonize the laboratory report. During these years the commitment of the journal, devoted to the harmonization processes has allowed to improve the awareness on the topic and to provide specific instruments to monitor the rate of errors and to improve patients safety.

Effects of a preoperative neuromobilization program offered to individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome awaiting carpal tunnel decompression surgery: A pilot randomized controlled study

STUDY DESIGN

Pilot randomized controlled trial with parallel groups.

INTRODUCTION

Engaging individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) awaiting carpal tunnel decompression surgery in a preoperative rehabilitation program may mitigate pain and sensorimotor impairments, enhance functional abilities before surgery, and improve postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To assess the feasibility and the efficacy of a novel preoperative neuromobilization exercise program (NEP).

METHODS

Thirty individuals with CTS were randomly allocated into a four-week home-based neuromobilization exercise group or a standard care group while awaiting surgery. Outcome measures included feasibility (ie, recruitment, attrition, adherence, satisfaction, and safety) and efficacy metrics (ie, median nerve integrity and neurodynamics, tip pinch grip, pain, and upper limb functional abilities) collected before (ie, at the baseline and about four weeks later) and four weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty individuals with CTS were recruited (recruitment rate = 11.8%) and 25 completed the study (attrition rate = 16.7%). Adherence (94%) and satisfaction with the program (eg, enjoy the exercises and likeliness to repeat the NEP (≥4.2/5) were high and no serious adverse event was reported. NEP-related immediate pre- and post-surgery beneficial effects on pain interference were documented (P = .05, η² = .10), whereas an overall increased neurodynamics (P = .04, η² = .11) and decreased pain severity (P = .01, η² = .21) were observed.

DISCUSSION

Engaging in the proposed NEP has limited beneficial effect as a stand-alone intervention on pre- and post-surgery outcomes for individuals with CTS. Expanding the program's content and attribute by adding other components including desensitization maneuvers and novel therapies promoting corticospinal plasticity is recommended.

CONCLUSION

A preoperative NEP completed by individuals with CTS awaiting surgery is feasible, acceptable, and safe. However, given the limited beneficial effectsof the program, revision of its content and attributes is recommended before proceeding to large-scale trials.

Harmonization of Busulfan Plasma Exposure Unit (BPEU): A Community-Initiated Consensus Statement

Busulfan therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is often used to achieve target plasma exposures. Variability in busulfan plasma exposure units (BPEU) is a potential source for misinterpretation of publications and protocols and is a barrier to data capture by hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) registry databases. We sought to harmonize to a single BPEU for international use. Using Delphi consensus methodology, iterative surveys were sent to an increasing number of relevant clinical stakeholders. In survey 1, 14 stakeholders were asked to identify ideal properties of a BPEU. In survey 2, 52 stakeholders were asked (1) to evaluate BPEU candidates according to ideal BPEU properties established by survey 1 and local position statements for TDM and (2) to identify potential facilitators and barriers to adoption of the harmonized BPEU. The most frequently used BPEU identified, in descending order, were area under the curve (AUC) in μM × min, AUC in mg × h/L, concentration at steady state (Css) in ng/mL, AUC in μM × h, and AUC in μg × h/L. All respondents conceptually agreed on the ideal properties of a BPEU and to adopt a harmonized BPEU. Respondents were equally divided between selecting AUC in μM × min versus mg × h/L for harmonization. AUC in mg × h/L was finally selected as the harmonized BPEU, because it satisfied most of the survey-determined ideal properties for the harmonized BPEU and is read easily understood in the clinical practice environment. Furthermore, 10 major professional societies have endorsed AUC in mg × h/L as the harmonized unit for reporting to HCT registry databases and for use in future protocols and publications.

Harmonization in laboratory medicine: more than clinical chemistry?

The goal of harmonizing laboratory information is to contribute to quality in patient care, ultimately improving upon patient outcomes and safety. The main focus of harmonization and standardization initiatives has been on analytical processes within the laboratory walls, clinical chemistry tests in particular. However, two major evidences obtained in recent years show that harmonization should be promoted not only in the analytical phase but also in all steps of the testing process, encompassing the entire field of laboratory medicine, including innovative areas (e.g. “omics”) rather than just conventional clinical chemistry tests. A large body of evidence demonstrates the vulnerability of the extra-analytical phases of the testing cycle. Because only “good biological samples” can assure good analytical quality, a closer interconnection between the different phases of the cycle is needed. In order to provide reliable and accurate laboratory information, harmonization activities should cover all steps of the cycle from the “pre-pre-analytical” phase (right choice of test at right time for right patient) through the analytical steps (right results with right report) to the “post-post-analytical” steps (right and timely acknowledgment of laboratory information, right interpretation and utilization with any necessary advice as to what to do next with the information provided). In addition, modern clinical laboratories are performing a broad menu of hundreds of tests, covering both traditional and innovative subspecialties of the discipline. In addition, according to a centered viewpoint, harmonization initiatives should not be addressed exclusively to clinical chemistry tests but should also include all areas of laboratory medicine.

Uncertainty in measurement and total error - are they so incompatible?

There appears to be a growing debate with regard to the use of "Westgard style" total error and "GUM style" uncertainty in measurement. Some may argue that the two approaches are irreconcilable. The recent appearance of an article "Quality goals at the crossroads: growing, going, or gone" on the well-regarded Westgard Internet site requires some comment. In particular, a number of assertions which relate to ISO 15189 and uncertainty in measurement appear misleading. An alternate view of the key issues raised by Westergard may serve to guide and enlighten others who may accept such statements at face value.