Standardization of methods reduces variability: explanation for historical discrepancies in biochemical screening

Resistance to Change

Advances in medical technology do not follow a smooth process and are highly variable. Implementation can occasionally be rapid, but often faces varying degrees of resistance resulting at the very least in delayed implementation. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we have evaluated numerous technological advances from the perspective of how they were introduced, implemented, and opposed. Resistance varies from benign - often happening because of inertia or lack of resources to more active forms, including outright opposition using both appropriate and inappropriate methods to resist/delay changes in care. Today, even public health has become politicized, having nothing to do with the underlying science, but having catastrophic results. Two other corroding influences are marketing pressure from the private sector and vested interests in favor of one outcome or another. This also applies to governmental agencies. There are a number of ways in which papers have been buried including putting the thumb on the scale where reviewers can sabotage new ideas. Unless we learn to harness new technologies earlier in their life course and understand how to maneuver around the pillars of obstruction to their implementation, we will not be able to provide medical care at the forefront of technological capabilities.

Impact of folic acid fortification in the United States: markedly diminished high maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein values

OBJECTIVE

Folic acid fortification of breads and grains was implemented in the United States in 1998 in an attempt to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects. Outcome data from birth registries have shown a 20% drop-less than originally predicted. In this study, we ascertain if the impact of folic acid fortification is better seen at the time of midtrimester prenatal diagnosis by looking at incidence of high maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP) values.

METHODS

Data regarding MSAFP levels in 61,119 patients undergoing maternal serum screening at a large commercial laboratory were categorized by multiples of the median (MoM). The data were compared between 2 groups: before mandatory supplementation in the United States in 1997 and after mandatory supplementation in 2000. High MSAFP values were further categorized as high (2.75-4.00 MoM) or very high (more than 4.00 MoM). Data were analyzed by chi(2) analysis.

RESULTS

Comparative data showed a 32% decrease of patients with MoM greater than 2.75 + (2.5% -1.7%). Further categorizations revealed similar decreases.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of folic acid fortification has produced a profound decrease in the number of high MSAFP values, reflective of a decreased incidence of neural tube defects. Our results help to validate the decision to fortify food with folic acid, which represents a highly successful public health policy for primary prevention of birth defects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II-2

Correction for insulin-dependent diabetes in maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein testing has outlived its usefulness

OBJECTIVE

Historically, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels in insulin-dependent diabetes (IDDM) have shown an approximately 20% decrement, and a correction factor is used to standardize multiples of the median (MOMs). With new laboratory methods and improved precision, we sought to re-evaluate the correctness of this approach.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive biochemical screens were conducted among 60,287 nondiabetic patients and 307 patients with IDDM. Analyses were conducted in one laboratory, and comparisons were made with use of standard formula weight adjustments including a 20% correction factor for IDDM. Patients were then stratified according to maternal weight.

RESULTS

Nondiabetic patients averaged 1.00 MOM, IDDM patients 0.91 MOM with no adjustments, 0.96 MOM adjusting for weight only, and 1.20 MOM adjusting for weight and diabetes status. To explain the "overcorrection," analysis by maternal weight showed significant overrepresentation of IDDM patients at 175 pounds or above. In fact, the mean weight in pounds for nondiabetic subjects was 151 +/- 35 and for those with IDDM 174 +/- 52 (P <.001). With use of an upper limit weight cutoff of 200 pounds, results are within 4% of normal.

CONCLUSIONS

With current methodologies, the 20% correction factor for IDDM erroneously overcorrects. Two hundred pounds is sufficient, the weight correction for diabetic status should be abandoned.