Traceability and standardization of immunoassays: A major challenge

Standardization of Assays That Detect Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Antibodies

Rubella virus usually causes a mild infection in humans but can cause congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS; however, vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections. Rubella virus IgG is quantified with enzyme immunoassays that have been calibrated against the World Health Organization (WHO) international standard and report results in international units per milliliter. It is recognized that the results reported by these assays are not standardized. This investigation into the reasons for the lack of standardization found that the current WHO international standard (RUB-1-94) fails by three key metrological principles. The standard is not a pure analyte but is composed of pooled human immunoglobulin. It was not calibrated by certified reference methods; rather, superseded tests were used. Finally, no measurement uncertainty estimations have been provided. There is an analytical and clinical consequence to the lack of standardization of rubella virus IgG assays, which leads to misinterpretation of results. The current approach to standardization of rubella virus IgG assays has not achieved the desired results. A new approach is required.

Harmonization in laboratory medicine: the complete picture

Evidence of the acute lack of interchangeable laboratory results and consensus in current practice among clinical laboratories has underpinned greater attention to standardization and harmonization projects. Although the focus is mainly on the standardization of measurement procedures, the scope of harmonization goes beyond method and analytical results: it includes all other aspects of laboratory testing, including terminology and units, report formats, reference intervals and decision limits, as well as test profiles and criteria for the interpretation of results. This review provides further insight on the issue of harmonization in laboratory medicine in view of the urgent need for a complete picture now that old and new drivers are calling for more effective efforts in this field. The main drivers for standardization and harmonization projects are first and foremost patient safety, but also the increasing trends towards consolidation and networking of clinical laboratories, accreditation programs, clinical governance, and advances in Information Technology (IT), including the electronic patient record. The harmonization process, which should be considered a three-tier approach involving local, national and international fronts, must go beyond the harmonization of methods and analytical results to include all other aspects of laboratory testing. A pertinent example of the importance of a complete picture in harmonization programs is given by the National Bone Health Alliance working in the field of bone turnover markers in cooperation with scientific societies including the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).

Markers of bone turnover for the prediction of fracture risk and monitoring of osteoporosis treatment: a need for international reference standards

The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) recommend that a marker of bone formation (serum procollagen type I N propeptide, s-PINP) and a marker of bone resorption (serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, s-CTX) are used as reference analytes for bone turnover markers in clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION

Bone turnover markers (BTM) predict fracture risk, and treatment-induced changes in specific markers account for a substantial proportion of fracture risk reduction. The aims of this report were to determine their clinical potential in the prediction of fracture risk and for monitoring the treatment of osteoporosis and to set an appropriate research agenda.

METHODS

Evidence from prospective studies was gathered through literature review of the PUBMED database between the years 2000 and 2010 and the systematic review of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality up to 2001.

RESULTS

High levels of BTMs may predict fracture risk independently from bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. They have been used for this purpose in clinical practice for many years, but there is still a need for stronger evidence on which to base practice. BTMs provide pharmacodynamic information on the response to osteoporosis treatment, and as a result, they are widely used for monitoring treatment in the individual. However, their clinical value for monitoring is limited by inadequate appreciation of the sources of variability, by limited data for comparison of treatments using the same BTM and by inadequate quality control. IOF/IFCC recommend one bone formation marker (s-PINP) and one bone resorption marker (s-CTX) to be used as reference markers and measured by standardised assays in observational and intervention studies in order to compare the performance of alternatives and to enlarge the international experience of the application of markers to clinical medicine.

CONCLUSION

BTM hold promise in fracture risk prediction and for monitoring treatment. Uncertainties over their clinical use can be in part resolved by adopting international reference standards.