Gary L. Myers

Markers of Inflammation and Cardiovascular Disease Application to Clinical and Public Health Practice: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association

In 1998, the American Heart Association convened Prevention Conference V to examine strategies for the identification of high-risk patients who need primary prevention. Among the strategies discussed was the measurement of markers of inflammation.1 The Conference concluded that “many of these markers (including inflammatory markers) are not yet considered applicable for routine risk assessment because of: (1) lack of measurement standardization, (2) lack of consistency in epidemiological findings from prospective studies with endpoints, and (3) lack of evidence that the novel marker adds to risk prediction over and above that already achievable through the use of established risk factors.” The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines identified these markers as emerging risk factors,1a which could be used as an optional risk factor measurement to adjust estimates of absolute risk obtained using standard risk factors. Since these publications, a large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports have been published relating inflammatory markers to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Several commercial assays for inflammatory markers have become available. As a consequence of the expanding research base and availability of assays, the number of inflammatory marker tests ordered by clinicians for CVD risk prediction has grown rapidly. Despite this, there has been no consensus from professional societies or governmental agencies as to how these assays of markers of inflammation should be used in clinical practice. On March 14 and 15, 2002, a workshop titled “CDC/AHA Workshop on Inflammatory Markers and Cardiovascular Disease: Applications to Clinical and Public Health Practice” was convened in Atlanta, Ga, to address these issues. The goals of this workshop were to determine which of the currently available tests should be used; what results should be used to define high risk; which patients should be tested; and the indications for which the tests would be most useful. These …

Creatinine Measurement: State of the Art in Accuracy and Interlaboratory Harmonization

CONTEXT The National Kidney Disease Education Program recommends calculating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine concentration. Accurate creatinine measurements are necessary for this calculation. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the state of the art in measuring serum creatinine, as well as the ability of a proficiency testing program to measure bias for individual laboratories and method peer groups. DESIGN A fresh-frozen, off-the-clot pooled serum specimen plus 4 conventional specimens were sent to participants in the College of American Pathologists Chemistry Survey for assay of creatinine. Creatinine concentrations were assigned by isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedures. PARTICIPANTS Clinical laboratories with an acceptable result for all 5 survey specimens (n = 5624). RESULTS The fresh frozen serum (FFS) specimen had a creatinine concentration of 0.902 mg/dL (79.7 micromol/L). Mean bias for 50 instrument-method peer groups varied from -0.06 to 0.31 mg/dL (-5.3 to 27.4 micromol/L), with 30 (60%) of 50 peer groups having significant bias (P < .001). The bias variability was related to instrument manufacturer (P < or = .001) rather than method type (P = .02) with 24 (63%) of 38 alkaline picric acid methods and with 6 (50%) of 12 enzymatic methods having significant biases. Two conventional specimens had creatinine concentrations of 0.795 and 2.205 mg/dL (70.3 and 194.9 micromol/L) and had apparent survey biases significantly different (P < .001) from that of the FFS specimen for 34 (68%) and 35 (70%) of 50 peer groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Thirty of 50 peer groups had significant bias for creatinine. Bias was primarily associated with instrument manufacturer, not with type of method used. Proficiency testing using a commutable specimen measured participant bias versus a reference measurement procedure and provided trueness surveillance of instrument-method peer groups.

Seven Direct Methods for Measuring HDL and LDL Cholesterol Compared with Ultracentrifugation Reference Measurement Procedures

BACKGROUND Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS We performed each direct method according to the manufacturers instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.

The IFCC Reference Measurement System for HbA1c: A 6-Year Progress Report

BACKGROUND The IFCC Reference Measurement System for hemoglobin (Hb)A(1c) (IFCC-RM) has been developed within the framework of metrologic traceability and is embedded in a network of 14 reference laboratories. This paper describes the outcome of 12 intercomparison studies (periodic evaluations to control essential elements of the IFCC-RM). METHODS Each study included: unknown samples (to test individual network laboratories); known samples (controls); recently manufactured calibrators (to check calculated assigned value); stored calibrators (to test stability) and a calibration-set (to calibrate the IFCC-RM). The unknown samples are measured by use of the IFCC-RM and the designated comparison methods [DCMs; the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) in the US, Japanese Diabetes Society/Japanese Society for Clinical Chemistry (JDS/JSCC) in Japan, and Mono-S in Sweden] are used to investigate the stability of the Master Equation (ME), the relationship between IFCC-RM and DCMs. RESULTS A total of 105 IFCC-RM data sets were evaluated: 95 were approved, 5 were not, and for 5 no data were submitted. Trend analysis of the MEs, expressed as change in percentage HbA(1c) per year, revealed 0.000% (NGSP, not significant), -0.030%, (JDS/JSCC; significant) and -0.016% (Mono-S; not significant). Evaluation of long-term performance revealed no systematic change over time; 2 laboratories showed significant bias, 1 poor reproducibility. The mean HbA(1c) determined by laboratories performing mass spectrometry (MS) was the same as the mean determined by laboratories using capillary electrophoresis (CE), but the reproducibility at laboratories using CE was better. One batch of new calibrators was not approved. All stored calibrators were stable. CONCLUSION A sound reference system is in place to ensure continuity and stability of the analytical anchor for HbA(1c).

C-reactive Protein Concentration Distribution among US Children and Young Adults: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2000

BACKGROUND The distribution of C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations among children and young adults in the US is not known at present. METHODS We used data from 3348 US children and young adults 3-19 years of age who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2000, to describe the distribution of CRP concentrations, based on results obtained with a high-sensitivity latex-enhanced turbidimetric assay. RESULTS The range of CRP concentrations was 0.1-90.8 mg/L (mean, 1.6 mg/L; geometric mean, 0.5 mg/L; median, 0.4 mg/L). CRP concentrations increased with age. Females 16-19 years of age had higher concentrations than males in this age range (P = 0.003). Mexican Americans had the highest CRP concentrations among the three major race or ethnic groups (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS For the first time, these data describe the CRP concentration distribution among US children and young adults, based on results obtained with a high-sensitivity assay.

Roadmap for Harmonization of Clinical Laboratory Measurement Procedures

Results between different clinical laboratory measurement procedures (CLMP) should be equivalent, within clinically meaningful limits, to enable optimal use of clinical guidelines for disease diagnosis and patient management. When laboratory test results are neither standardized nor harmonized, a different numeric result may be obtained for the same clinical sample. Unfortunately, some guidelines are based on test results from a specific laboratory measurement procedure without consideration of the possibility or likelihood of differences between various procedures. When this happens, aggregation of data from different clinical research investigations and development of appropriate clinical practice guidelines will be flawed. A lack of recognition that results are neither standardized nor harmonized may lead to erroneous clinical, financial, regulatory, or technical decisions. Standardization of CLMPs has been accomplished for several measurands for which primary (pure substance) reference materials exist and/or reference measurement procedures (RMPs) have been developed. However, the harmonization of clinical laboratory procedures for measurands that do not have RMPs has been problematic owing to inadequate definition of the measurand, inadequate analytical specificity for the measurand, inadequate attention to the commutability of reference materials, and lack of a systematic approach for harmonization. To address these problems, an infrastructure must be developed to enable a systematic approach for identification and prioritization of measurands to be harmonized on the basis of clinical importance and technical feasibility, and for management of the technical implementation of a harmonization process for a specific measurand.

National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Emerging Biomarkers for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND Heart disease and stroke continue to be the leading causes of death in the US. As a result, investigators continue to look for new and emerging biomarkers of disease risk. Because many of these emerging biomarkers are not as well documented as those of conventional lipid and lipoprotein risk factors, their value in clinical practice needs to be critically appraised and appropriate guidelines developed for their proposed use. CONTENT The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to develop laboratory medicine practice guidelines for a selected subset of these emerging risk factors as applied in a primary prevention setting of heart disease and stroke. The NACB expert panel selected lipoprotein subclasses and particle concentration, lipoprotein(a), apolipoproteins A-I and B, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), fibrinogen, white blood cell count, homocysteine, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP), and markers of renal function as biomarkers that fell within the scope of these guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Based on a thorough review of the published literature, only hsCRP met all of the stated criteria required for acceptance as a biomarker for risk assessment in primary prevention.

Interlaboratory comparison study of serum total testoserone measurements performed by mass spectrometry methods

BACKGROUND Though mass spectrometry (MS) assays are increasingly used for routine clinical measurements of serum total testosterone (TT), information about the variability of results is limited. This study assessed the variability of TT measurement results from routine MS assays. METHODS Twenty serum samples (12 females, 8 males) were analyzed on 2 days by seven high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and one gas chromatography (GC)-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS, GC-MS/MS) assays. Two samples (male and female) were provided in five replicates to assess the within-run variability. Results were compared against those obtained at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The within- and between-laboratory variability was assessed for each sample. Comparisons to the NIST results were performed using bias plot and Deming regression analysis. RESULTS The overall coefficient of variation of the results obtained with MS assays was <15%CV at >1.53 nmol/L and <34%CV at 0.3 nmol/L. The between-assay variability was the major contributor to the overall variability. The assay precision was the highest (<3%CV) with assays using liquid-liquid extraction for sample preparation or GC-MS/MS. The mean percent difference to the reference assay was 11%. The slopes of Deming regression analysis of the MS assays were between 0.903 and 1.138 (correlation coefficient: >0.996). TT concentrations for one assay were above the measurement range. CONCLUSIONS The variability of TT measurement results among MS assays is substantially smaller than that reported for immunoassays. The type of sample preparation may affect assay precision. Standardizing assays can further reduce the variability of measurement results.

Global standardization of glycated hemoglobin measurement: the position of the IFCC Working Group

Abstract The measurement of glycated hemoglobin is central in the monitoring of glycemic control in patients with diabetes. There are at least 30 different laboratory assays commercially available to measure the proportion of HbA1c in blood. In 1995 the IFCC established a Working Group (IFCC WG-HbA1c) to achieve international standardization of HbA1c measurement. The main achievements can be summarized as follows: a) a reference measurement procedure has been established with purified primary calibrators; b) a network of reference laboratories has been developed worldwide; and c) work has begun on implementation of traceability to the IFCC reference system. The IFCC WG-HbA1c recognizes the recommendation of the IFCC-IUPAC Committee on Nomenclature, Properties and Units that the analyte measured by the IFCC reference measurement procedure has been defined as βN1-deoxyfructosyl-hemoglobin and that the recommended measurement units are mmol/mol. The IFCC WG-HbA1c recommends maintaining the use of the name HbA1c in clinical practice. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1077–80.

Population Distribution of High-Sensitivity C-reactive Protein among US Men: Findings from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000

C-reactive protein, an acute-phase reactant, is produced in the liver and belongs to the pentraxin family of proteins (1). This protein is very sensitive to inflammation, and its concentration can increase rapidly in response to a wide range of stimuli. Originally described in 1930 (2), C-reactive protein measurements served mostly in a diagnostic, albeit a nonspecific one, and in a monitoring role in such fields as infectious diseases and rheumatology. In the past decade, as the role of inflammation in cardiovascular disease became appreciated, interest turned to C-reactive protein as a possible risk marker for cardiovascular disease. Since then, studies have shown that the C-reactive protein concentration is positively associated with cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality (3) even when the concentration is <3.0 mg/L, which was previously thought to be “normal” (4). As these research findings have reached the medical community, the use of C-reactive protein measurements has increased, but guidelines addressing the role of C-reactive protein testing in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease have not been developed. To facilitate the development of such guidelines, several issues must be addressed, including population distributions of C-reactive protein concentrations and thresholds for interventions. A key piece of missing information has been the population distribution of C-reactive protein in the US, especially the distribution of C-reactive protein concentrations <3.0 mg/L. This information is helpful in calculating the fraction of cardiovascular disease attributable to increased C-reactive protein concentrations. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III provided information only on the upper ranges of the C-reactive protein distribution (5)(6) because the C-reactive protein test used in that survey had a lower detection limit of 3.0 mg/L. Another missing piece of information is whether Creactive protein concentration distributions differ among major population groups. Previous research on the association …