Christa M. Cobbaert

Fasting is not routinely required for determination of a lipid profile: clinical and laboratory implications including flagging at desirable concentration cut-points—a joint consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Abstract Aims To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. Methods and results Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1–6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; −0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; −0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; −0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, while fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral when triglycerides >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL) for the risk of pancreatitis, LDL cholesterol >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, LDL cholesterol >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL) for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, and lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile) for very high cardiovascular risk. Conclusion We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cut-points. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Prime time for enzymatic creatinine methods in pediatrics.

BACKGROUND The literature regarding the nonspecificity of applications of the Jaffe (alkaline picrate) reaction for creatinine is generally outdated. We conducted a specificity study to update the nonspecificity information for current Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine assays. METHODS Two serum pools with creatinine concentrations within the pediatric reference interval were spiked with albumin, IgG, unconjugated bilirubin, adult hemoglobin (Hb A), and fetal hemoglobin (Hb F) to produce 1 unspiked and 5 spiked samples per pool. The 35 laboratories participating in the survey used a total of 14 method-analyzer combinations. Measurements were performed in triplicate in a single run in accordance with manufacturer instructions. Absolute differences in creatinine concentration between spiked and unspiked samples were calculated per laboratory. Mixed ANOVA was used to quantify the interferent-related CV component for the Jaffe and enzymatic methods. RESULTS The interference by bilirubin and Hb A on serum creatinine measurements was <10% for most of the Jaffe and enzymatic methods. Obvious interference was observed among the Jaffe methods in samples spiked with Hb F, albumin, and IgG, but not among the enzymatic methods. The within-laboratory interferent-related CVs for the Jaffe method-analyzer combinations ranged from 8.0%-27% at a creatinine concentration of 40.4 micromol/L (0.46 mg/dL) and from 5.4%-15% at 73.4 micromol/L (0.83 mg/dL). Enzymatic methods had within-laboratory interferent-related CVs of <4% at both concentrations. CONCLUSIONS Albumin, IgG, and Hb F interfered with Jaffe creatinine assays, leading to inaccuracies in estimated glomerular filtration rates that are clinically important, especially in children and neonates. Because protein error and Hb F interference do not occur with any of the enzymatic methods tested, we conclude that enzymatic creatinine methods are preferred for evaluation of kidney function in pediatric cases.

Modulation of lipoprotein(a) atherogenicity by high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in middle-aged men with symptomatic coronary artery disease and normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol

OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine whether lipoprotein(a) levels predict coronary artery lumen changes in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) and normal to moderate hypercholesterolemia. BACKGROUND Recent conflicting reports have confirmed or refuted the association of lipoprotein(a) with clinical events or angiographically verified disease progression. METHODS The association between serum lipoprotein(a) and changes in coronary artery lumen was studied in 704 men entered into the Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, quantitative angiographic study that assessed the effect of 2 years of pravastatin treatment. The primary end points were changes in average mean segment diameter (MSD) and average minimal obstruction diameter (MOD). Pravastatin- and placebo-treated patients were classified as having progressing, regressing or stable CAD, and median lipoprotein(a) concentrations were compared. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed in the overall patient group and in high risk subgroups. RESULTS Pravastatin treatment did not affect serum apolipoprotein(a) levels. Median in-trial (sampled at 24 months) apolipoprotein(a) levels for regressing, stable and progressing CAD were, respectively, 130, 162 and 251 U/liter in placebo-treated patients and 143, 224 and 306 U/liter in pravastatin-treated patients. Predictors of MSD and MOD changes were baseline MSD and MOD, in-trial apolipoprotein(a), in-trial high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and baseline use of long-acting nitrates. The multivariate models predicted 14% of MSD changes and 12% of MOD changes; apolipoprotein(a) predicted only 2.6% and 4.8%, respectively. However, in patients with in-trial HDL cholesterol levels <0.7 mmol/liter, apolipoprotein(a) predicted up to 37% of the arteriographic changes. CONCLUSIONS Serum lipoprotein(a) levels predict coronary artery lumen changes in normal to moderately hypercholesterolemic white men with CAD; its atherogenicity is marked in the presence of concomitant hypoalphalipoproteinemia.

From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation.

Regulators and healthcare payers are increasingly demanding evidence that biomarkers deliver patient benefits to justify their use in clinical practice. Laboratory professionals need to be familiar with these evidence requirements to better engage in biomarker research and decisions about their appropriate use. This paper by a multidisciplinary group of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine describes the pathway of a laboratory assay measuring a biomarker to becoming a medically useful test. We define the key terms, principles and components of the test evaluation process. Unlike previously described linearly staged models, we illustrate how the essential components of analytical and clinical performances, clinical and cost-effectiveness and the broader impact of testing assemble in a dynamic cycle. We highlight the importance of defining clinical goals and how the intended application of the biomarker in the clinical pathway should drive each component of test evaluation. This approach emphasizes the interaction of the different components, and that clinical effectiveness data should be fed back to refine analytical and clinical performances to achieve improved outcomes. The framework aims to support the understanding of key stakeholders. The laboratory profession needs to strengthen collaboration with industry and experts in evidence-based medicine, regulatory bodies and policy makers for better decisions about the use of new and existing medical tests.

Fasting is not routinely required for determination of a lipid profile: Clinical and Laboratory implications including flagging at desirable concentration cutpoints-A joint consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

AIMS To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, whereas fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides are >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral for the risk of pancreatitis when triglycerides are >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL), for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), and for very high cardiovascular risk when lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile). CONCLUSIONS We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cutpoints. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Focusing on the clinical impact of standardization of creatinine measurements: a report by the EFCC Working Group on Creatinine Standardization

Abstract The recent campaign for standardization of creatinine measurements has been promoted to allow the widespread use of formulas for estimating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, studies on trueness verification and measurement interferences still show disappointing interassay variation of serum creatinine results. Creatinine recalibration has major clinical consequences. In particular, in pediatrics where reference ranges for serum and plasma creatinine are low, calculation of the GFR is problematic when based on alkaline picrate methods because of method non-specificity and the lack of appropriate GFR estimating formulas. Therefore, enzymatic creatinine assays are preferred. In the near future, cystatin C might offer an interesting alternative for GFR estimation. For the calculation of drug doses, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study formula generally offers reliable data. However, attention has to be paid to the elderly. Also, the calculation of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, which is used to prioritize patients for liver transplantation, may significantly be influenced by recalibration of creatinine assays. Creatinine restandardization may also affect the current guidelines for referral of chronic kidney disease patients to nephrologists.

Trueness verification of actual creatinine assays in the European market demonstrates a disappointing variability that needs substantial improvement. An international study in the framework of the EC4 creatinine standardization working group

Abstract Background: The European In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) directive requires traceability to reference methods and materials of analytes. It is a task of the profession to verify the trueness of results and IVD compatibility. Methods: The results of a trueness verification study by the European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry (EC4) working group on creatinine standardization are described, in which 189 European laboratories analyzed serum creatinine in a commutable serum-based material, using analytical systems from seven companies. Values were targeted using isotope dilution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Results were tested on their compliance to a set of three criteria: trueness, i.e., no significant bias relative to the target value, between-laboratory variation and within-laboratory variation relative to the maximum allowable error. Results: For the lower and intermediate level, values differed significantly from the target value in the Jaffe and the dry chemistry methods. At the high level, dry chemistry yielded higher results. Between-laboratory coefficients of variation ranged from 4.37% to 8.74%. Total error budget was mainly consumed by the bias. Non-compensated Jaffe methods largely exceeded the total error budget. Best results were obtained for the enzymatic method. The dry chemistry method consumed a large part of its error budget due to calibration bias. Conclusions: Despite the European IVD directive and the growing needs for creatinine standardization, an unacceptable inter-laboratory variation was observed, which was mainly due to calibration differences. The calibration variation has major clinical consequences, in particular in pediatrics, where reference ranges for serum and plasma creatinine are low, and in the estimation of glomerular filtration rate. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1319–25.

Oxidative damage in clinical ischemia/reperfusion injury: a reappraisal.

AIMS Ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury is a common clinical problem. Although the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying I/R injury are unclear, oxidative damage is considered a key factor in the initiation of I/R injury. Findings from preclinical studies consistently show that quenching reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS), thus limiting oxidative damage, alleviates I/R injury. Results from clinical intervention studies on the other hand are largely inconclusive. In this study, we systematically evaluated the release of established biomarkers of oxidative and nitrosative damage during planned I/R of the kidney and heart in a wide range of clinical conditions. RESULTS Sequential arteriovenous concentration differences allowed specific measurements over the reperfused organ in time. None of the biomarkers of oxidative and nitrosative damage (i.e., malondialdehyde, 15(S)-8-iso-prostaglandin F2α, nitrite, nitrate, and nitrotyrosine) were released upon reperfusion. Cumulative urinary measurements confirmed plasma findings. As of these negative findings, we tested for oxidative stress during I/R and found activation of the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), the master regulator of oxidative stress signaling. INNOVATION This comprehensive, clinical study evaluates the role of RONS in I/R injury in two different human organs (kidney and heart). Results show oxidative stress, but do not provide evidence for oxidative damage during early reperfusion, thereby challenging the prevailing paradigm on RONS-mediated I/R injury. CONCLUSION Findings from this study suggest that the contribution of oxidative damage to human I/R may be less than commonly thought and propose a re-evaluation of the mechanism of I/R.

Clinical evaluation of analytical variations in serum creatinine measurements: why laboratories should abandon Jaffe techniques

BackgroundNon-equivalence in serum creatinine (SCr) measurements across Dutch laboratories and the consequences hereof on chronic kidney disease (CKD) staging were examined.MethodsNational data from the Dutch annual external quality organization of 2009 were used. 144 participating laboratories examined 11 pairs of commutable, value-assigned SCr specimens in the range 52–262 μmol/L, using Jaffe or enzymatic techniques. Regression equations were created for each participating laboratory (by regressing values as measured by participating laboratories on the target values of the samples sent by the external quality organization); area under the curves were examined and used to rank laboratories. The 10th and 90th percentile regression equation were selected for each technique separately. To evaluate the impact of the variability in SCr measurements and its eventual clinical consequences in a real patient population, we used a cohort of 82424 patients aged 19–106 years. The SCr measurements of these 82424 patients were introduced in the 10th and 90th percentile regression equations. The newly calculated SCr values were used to calculate an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the 4-variable Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry traceable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. Differences in CKD staging were examined, comparing the stratification outcomes for Jaffe and enzymatic SCr techniques.ResultsJaffe techniques overestimated SCr: 21%, 12%, 10% for SCr target values 52, 73 and 94 μmol/L, respectively. For enzymatic assay these values were 0%, -1%, -2%, respectively. eGFR using the MDRD formula and SCr measured by Jaffe techniques, staged patients in a lower CKD category. Downgrading to a lower CKD stage occurred in 1-42%, 2-37% and 12–78.9% of patients for the 10th and 90th percentile laboratories respectively in CKD categories 45–60, 60–90 and >90 ml/min/1.73 m2. Using enzymatic techniques, downgrading occurred only in 2-4% of patients.ConclusionsEnzymatic techniques lead to less variability in SCr measurements than Jaffe techniques, and therefore result in more accurate staging of CKD. Therefore the specific enzymatic techniques are preferably used in clinical practice in order to generate more reliable GFR estimates.

Automated Multiplex LC-MS/MS Assay for Quantifying Serum Apolipoproteins A-I, B, C-I, C-II, C-III, and E with Qualitative Apolipoprotein E Phenotyping

BACKGROUND Direct and calculated measures of lipoprotein fractions for cardiovascular risk assessment suffer from analytical inaccuracy in certain dyslipidemic and pathological states, most commonly hypertriglyceridemia. LC-MS/MS has proven suitable for multiplexed quantification and phenotyping of apolipoproteins. We developed and provisionally validated an automated assay for quantification of apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, B, C-I, C-II, C-III, and E and simultaneous qualitative assessment of apoE phenotypes. METHODS We used 5 value-assigned human serum pools for external calibration. Serum proteins were denatured, reduced, and alkylated according to standard mass spectrometry-based proteomics procedures. After trypsin digestion, peptides were analyzed by LC-MS/MS. For each peptide, we measured 2 transitions. We compared LC-MS/MS results to those obtained by an immunoturbidimetric assay or ELISA. RESULTS Intraassay CVs were 2.3%-5.5%, and total CVs were 2.5%-5.9%. The LC-MS/MS assay correlated (R = 0.975-0.995) with immunoturbidimetric assays with Conformité Européenne marking for apoA-I, apoB, apoC-II, apoC-III, and apoE in normotriglyceridemic (n = 54) and hypertriglyceridemic (n = 46) sera. Results were interchangeable for apoA-I ≤3.0 g/L (Deming slope 1.014) and for apoB-100 ≤1.8 g/L (Deming slope 1.016) and were traceable to higher-order standards. CONCLUSIONS The multiplex format provides an opportunity for new diagnostic and pathophysiologic insights into types of dyslipidemia and allows a more personalized approach for diagnosis and treatment of lipid abnormalities.