Standardization and harmonization in laboratory medicine: not only for clinical chemistry measurands

Quantitative Evaluation of the Real-World Harmonization Status of Laboratory Test Items Using External Quality Assessment Data

Background

In recent decades, the analytical quality of clinical laboratory results has substantially increased because of collaborative efforts. To effectively utilize laboratory results in applications, such as machine learning through big data, understanding the level of harmonization for each test would be beneficial. We aimed to develop a quantitative harmonization index that reflects the harmonization status of real-world laboratory tests.

Methods

We collected 2021-2022 external quality assessment (EQA) results for eight tests (HbA1c, creatinine, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride, alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]). This EQA was conducted by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service, using commutable materials. The total analytical error of each test was determined according to the bias% and CV% within peer groups. The values were divided by the total allowable error from biological variation (minimum, desirable, and optimal) to establish a real-world harmonization index (RWHI) at each level (minimum, desirable, and optimal). Good harmonization was arbitrarily defined as an RWHI value ≤ 1 for the three levels.

Results

Total cholesterol, triglyceride, and CEA had an optimal RWHI of ≤ 1, indicating an optimal harmonization level. Tests with a desirable harmonization level included HDL-cholesterol, AFP, and PSA. Creatinine had a minimum harmonization level, and HbA1c did not reach the minimum harmonization level.

Conclusions

We developed a quantitative RWHI using regional EQA data. This index may help reflect the actual harmonization level of laboratory tests in the field.

Assessing post-analytical phase harmonization in European laboratories: a survey promoted by the EFLM Working Group on Harmonization

OBJECTIVES

Harmonization of the laboratory total testing process (TTP) is critical to improving patient outcome. In 2016, an EFLM survey on the harmonization of TTP underlined the serious shortcomings pertaining to the post-analytical phase. In 2023, the WG-H conducted a new survey aiming to update information in the 2016 harmonization report in order to ascertain whether countries that had declared they were keen to adopt SI units had continued with this program, the aim being to verify the state-of art in harmonization units in areas of laboratory medicine not included in the previous survey.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to the Presidents and National Representatives of EFLM Full Member Societies and EFLM affiliate Members. The survey questions were grouped into three categories: measurement units, reference intervals, and nomenclature/terminology, and results were evaluated using Survey Monkey software and Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 123 questionnaires from 31 countries were analyzed. A trend (+19.3 %) was observed toward a wider use of SI units for general clinical biochemistry parameters. The results for tests not included in the 2016 survey (i.e., endocrinology diagnostics and coagulation panels), demonstrated that for reports on hormones, responses were satisfactory, 70-90 % of the responders adopting the recommended units, whereas for coagulation test panels, a serious lack of harmonization was found, "seconds", which are inaccurate and not recommended, being widely used units (91 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings made in the 2023 survey demonstrated a progressive, albeit slow, improvement in harmonization reports. However, further efforts at improvement are mandatory.

Measurement uncertainty in clinical chemistry: ISO 20914 versus nordtest or intermediate precision versus bias

AIM

Measuring uncertainty (MU) is crucial to ensure the accuracy and precision of laboratory results. This study compares the ISO 20914 and Nordtest guidelines to analyze the MU values for 20 clinical chemistry analytes over six months.

METHODS

The researchers calculated MU components, including within-laboratory reproducibility (Rw), laboratory analytical performance bias (u(bias)), and combined standard uncertainty (uc), based on internal quality control and external quality assessment data. The final expanded uncertainty (U) values were determined by multiplying the combined uncertainty with a coverage factor (k = 2 for 95% Confidence Interval), following each guideline's respective procedures. Clinical chemistry analytes were analyzed on Roche Cobas 6000 c501 auto analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and manufacturer's kits were used analysis.

RESULTS

The results show that 11 out of 20 clinical chemistry analytes met the targeted maximum allowable measurement uncertainty (MAU) values when calculated according to ISO 20914 guideline. Also, 11 out of 20 clinical chemistry analytes' MU values met the MAU values with the Nordtest guideline's recommended calculations. However, some tests met the MAU in the ISO 20914 approach but not in the Nordtest guideline, and vice versa.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that intermediate precision (uRw) in the ISO 20914 approach and performance bias (u(bias)) in the Nordtest approach significantly impacted MU values. The research highlights the importance of standardization in MU calculation approaches across clinical laboratories. These findings have implications for patient care and clinical decision-making, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate laboratory guidelines for routine use.

Commutability assessment of candidate reference materials for plasma renin activity measurement: current challenges

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the commutability of external quality assessment (EQA) materials and candidate reference materials (RMs) for plasma renin activity (PRA) assay.

METHODS

Commutabilities of 16 candidate RMs were measured along with 40 clinical samples by the four different routine PRA assays, including three LC‒MS/MS assays and one chemiluminescence immunoassay. Sixteen candidate RMs included native/spiked human plasma pools (small-scale pools with <50 individuals) and current EQA materials (large-scale pools with >1,000 individuals). Difference in bias approach and linear regression with prediction interval approach were adopted to determine the commutability. Two-way variance analysis was used to estimate the effects of spiked and pool size on the commutability. Stability and homogeneity studies were performed.

RESULTS

Precision and correlation performance of all assays was acceptable. In the difference in bias approach, the commutability results were not satisfactory (noncommutability: 14/16) and significant sample-specific effects were detected in assay pairs using different incubation buffers. For the prediction interval approach, no commutability was observed in the spiked small-scale pools; EQA materials (4/9) had more satisfactory commutability among all assays than the small-scale pools (2/7); RMs of large-scale pools tend to have better commutability no matter spiked or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Commutable RMs were obtainable but challenging. Current EQA materials with relatively good commutability, stability, and homogeneity were appropriate RMs. Large-scale pools are tending to be commutable. Spiking in small-scale pools was not suggested to prepare RMs. MPs adopting a uniform incubation buffer would be preferable for further commutability research.

The total testing process harmonization: the case study of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests

The total testing process harmonization is central to laboratory medicine, leading to the laboratory test's effectiveness. In this opinion paper the five phases of the TTP are analyzed, describing, and summarizing the critical issues that emerged in each phase of the TTP with the SARS-CoV-2 serological tests that have affected their effectiveness. Testing and screening the population was essential for defining seropositivity and, thus, driving public health policies in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the many differences in terminology, the unit of measurement, reference ranges and parameters for interpreting results make analytical results difficult to compare, leading to the general confusion that affects or completely precludes the comparability of data. Starting from these considerations related to SARS-CoV-2 serological tests, through interdisciplinary work, the authors have highlighted the most critical points and formulated proposals to make total testing process harmonization effective, positively impacting the diagnostic effectiveness of laboratory tests.

Poor comparability of plasma renin activity measurement in determining patient samples: the status quo and recommendations for harmonization

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate and update the consistency and comparability of plasma renin activity (PRA) assays in measuring clinical samples. The contributions of recalibration, blank subtraction, and incubation strategies to interchangeability were also explored.

METHODS

Five different laboratories were evaluated using forty-six individual plasma samples, including four liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC‒MS/MS) assays and one chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). Spearman correlation coefficient (R), Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland‒Altman plot analyses were used to evaluate the consistency among assays. Consistency before and after recalibration, blank subtraction, and incubation strategy unification was compared.

RESULTS

A good correlation was observed among all assays (R>0.93). None of the samples measured by all assays showed coefficient variation (CV) <10 %, and 37 % of samples showed overall CVs >20 %. The 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for slopes did not contain 1 for most assay pairs. Large relative biases (-85.1-104.2 %) were found, and 76 % (52-93 %) of samples had unacceptable biases. Recalibration reduced the calibration bias. Ignoring blank subtraction improved the comparability across all assays while unifying incubation did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The interchangeability of PRA measurement was unsatisfying. Harmonization on calibrator and ignoring blank were recommended. Unifying incubation strategy was unnecessary.

Striving for a pragmatic contribution of biomarkers results to lifelong health care

BACKGROUND

The increased role of preventive medicine in healthcare and the rapid technological advancements, have deeply changed the landscape of laboratory medicine. In particular, increased investments in newborn screening tests and policies have been observed. Aim of this paper is to characterize how laboratory professionals engaged in clinical chemistry or newborn screening, in collaboration with experts in econometric, bioinformatics, and biostatistics may address a pragmatic use of laboratory results in the decision-making process oriented toward improvement of health care outcomes.

CONTENT

The effectiveness of biomarkers on healthcare depends on several factors such as analytical performance, prevalence of the disease, integration of the test within the diagnostic algorithm, associated costs, and social/economic impact of false positive and false negative results. Cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be performed and reliability achieved, by overcoming analytical pitfalls and by improving interpretative criteria. These are challenging issues common to clinical chemistry and newborn screening tests. Following the experience in clinical chemistry, one of the main issues to be approached in newborn screening tests, is the lack of harmonization of results obtained by different methods and the limited healthcare effectiveness.

SUMMARY

The focus on prevention is a crucial opportunity for laboratory medicine to change how to approach the effectiveness of biomarkers on healthcare. The consolidation within clinical laboratories of professionals with different technical and methodological expertise coupled with the need to produce and manage large sets of data, require the cooperation of professionals from other disciplines to characterize the impact of the tests on epidemiological outcomes for health care policy making process.