Sverre Sandberg

Current Issues in Measurement and Reporting of Urinary Albumin Excretion

BACKGROUND Urinary excretion of albumin indicates kidney damage and is recognized as a risk factor for progression of kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. The role of urinary albumin measurements has focused attention on the clinical need for accurate and clearly reported results. The National Kidney Disease Education Program and the IFCC convened a conference to assess the current state of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues affecting urine albumin measurements and to identify areas needing improvement. CONTENT The chemistry of albumin in urine is incompletely understood. Current guidelines recommend the use of the albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) as a surrogate for the error-prone collection of timed urine samples. Although ACR results are affected by patient preparation and time of day of sample collection, neither is standardized. Considerable intermethod differences have been reported for both albumin and creatinine measurement, but trueness is unknown because there are no reference measurement procedures for albumin and no reference materials for either analyte in urine. The recommended reference intervals for the ACR do not take into account the large intergroup differences in creatinine excretion (e.g., related to differences in age, sex, and ethnicity) nor the continuous increase in risk related to albumin excretion. DISCUSSION Clinical needs have been identified for standardization of (a) urine collection methods, (b) urine albumin and creatinine measurements based on a complete reference system, (c) reporting of test results, and (d) reference intervals for the ACR.

Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

*Corresponding author: Sverre Sandberg, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen and Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Bergen, Norway, E-mail: sverre.sandberg@isf.uib.no Callum G. Fraser: Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK Andrea Rita Horvath: SEALS Department of Clinical Chemistry, Prince of Wales Hospital, Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Rob Jansen: Netherlands Foundation for Quality Assessment of Medical Laboratories (SKML), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Graham Jones: SydPath, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wytze Oosterhuis: Atrium-Orbis, Department of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, Heerlen, The Netherlands Per Hyltoft Petersen: Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus), Institute of Global Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Norway Heinz Schimmel: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Geel, Belgium Ken Sikaris: Sonic Healthcare and Melbourne University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Mauro Panteghini: Centre for Metrological Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (CIRME), University of Milan, Milan, Italy Consensus Statement

Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality

Abstract Laboratory diagnostics (i.e., the total testing process) develops conventionally through a virtual loop, originally referred to as “the brain to brain cycle” by George Lundberg. Throughout this complex cycle, there is an inherent possibility that a mistake might occur. According to reliable data, preanalytical errors still account for nearly 60%–70% of all problems occurring in laboratory diagnostics, most of them attributable to mishandling procedures during collection, handling, preparing or storing the specimens. Although most of these would be “intercepted” before inappropriate reactions are taken, in nearly one fifth of the cases they can produce inappropriate investigations and unjustifiable increase in costs, while generating inappropriate clinical decisions and causing some unfortunate circumstances. Several steps have already been undertaken to increase awareness and establish a governance of this frequently overlooked aspect of the total testing process. Standardization and monitoring preanalytical variables is of foremost importance and is associated with the most efficient and well-organized laboratories, resulting in reduced operational costs and increased revenues. As such, this article is aimed at providing readers with significant updates on the total quality management of the preanalytical phase to endeavour further improvement for patient safety throughout this phase of the total testing process.

Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust

Abstract Total quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled “Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust” (Zagreb, Croatia, 1–2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed.

Porphyrin-induced photodamage at the cellular and the subcellular level as related to the solubility of the porphyrin

Porphyrin-induced photodamage has been studied on small organic molecules, biomolecules, mitochondria and red cells. Water soluble components (e.g. tryptophan and glutamate dehydrogenase) are more easily destroyed by uroporphyrin than by protoporphyrin. On the other hand, lipophilic components (e.g. succinate dehydrogenase, mitochondria and red cell membranes) are more severely damaged by protoporphyrin. The results may be of importance to explain the different skin lesions in erythropoietic protoporphyria and in porphyria cutanea tarda. The photodamage is enhanced by D2O and reduced by azide. Reagents known to increase or decrease the yields of superoxide, peroxide or hydroxyl radicals have no effect on the photodamage. The results suggest that singlet oxygen is the most important reactive oxygen species.

A multicentre study of reference intervals for haemoglobin, basic blood cell counts and erythrocyte indices in the adult population of the Nordic countries

Eight haematological quantities were measured in EDTA anticoagulated venous blood specimens collected from 1826 healthy male and female individuals between 18 and 90 years of age in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). The samples, collected between November 1999 and November 2001 as part of the Nordic Reference Interval Project (NORIP), were analysed on 12 different types of modern automated haematology instruments currently in use among the 60 laboratories participating in the study. Non‐parametric reference intervals (between 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles) have been calculated for B‐Haemoglobin (females 117–153 g/L, males 134–170 g/L), B‐Erythrocytes (females 3.94–5.16×1012/L, males 4.25–5.71×1012/L), B‐EVF (females 0.348–0.459, males 0.395–0.500), B‐MCV (82–98 fL), Erc‐MCH (27.1–33.3 pg), Erc‐MCHC (317–357 g/L), B‐Trc (females 165–387×109/L, males 145×348×109/L) and B‐Lkc (3.5–8.8×109/L). Partitioning of data according to age and gender was done according to a standardized procedure. For most variables the calculated reference intervals corresponded well with older and less well‐defined reference intervals. The mean concentration of B‐Haemoglobin increased by 0.08 g/L per year of age in women, and decreased by 0.1 g/L per year of age in men. B‐Haemoglobin increased with body mass index in both men and women. Smoking increased the mean of B‐Lkc by 1.1×109/L and regular use of alcohol increased the mean of B‐MCV by 0.8 fL. The influence of these factors was small overall and did not promote specific reference intervals.

The index of individuality is often a misinterpreted quantity characteristic.

Abstract The concept of the “index of individuality” was introduced by Eugene Harris in 1974. The index of individuality, calculated as (CVA 2 + CVI 2)1/2/CVG, where CvA, CvI, and CvG are analytical, within-subject, and between-subject coefficients of variation respectively, has been used by many to investigate the utility of conventional population-based reference values. For a high index of individuality, >1.4, it has been said that reference intervals will be more useful than for a low index, < 0.6. The validity of these concepts is investigated here and a number of our findings are at odds with the generally held opinion. The index of individuality has no impact on the fraction of individuals classified using population-based reference values, as long as the change in concentration from the usual state is of the same absolute magnitude and one sample is assayed to detect disease. However, when a measurement falling outside a reference limit is repeated in order to verify the finding, the index of individuality has considerable influence. For quantities with very low indices, the repeat test result, will be close to the first and give no new information, whereas for quantities with high indices, a repeat test will decrease the number of true positives and false positives.

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.

Confidence Intervals and Power Calculations for Within-Person Biological Variation: Effect of Analytical Imprecision, Number of Replicates, Number of Samples, and Number of Individuals

BACKGROUND Reliable estimates of within-person biological variation and reference change value are of great importance when interpreting test results, monitoring patients, and setting quality specifications. Little information has been published regarding what experimental design is optimal to achieve the best estimates of within-person biological variation. METHOD Expected CIs were calculated for different balanced designs for a 2-level nested variance analysis model with varying analytical imprecision. We also simulated data sets based on the model to calculate the power of different study designs for detection of within-person biological variation. RESULTS The reliability of an estimate for biological variation and a studys power is very much influenced by the study design and by the ratio between analytical imprecision and within-person biological variation. For a fixed number of measurements, it is preferable to have a high number of samples from each individual. Shortcomings in analytical imprecision can be controlled by increasing the number of replicates. CONCLUSIONS The design of an experiment to estimate biological variation should take into account the analytical imprecision of the method and focus on obtaining the highest possible reliability. Estimates of biological variation should always be reported with CIs.

Standardized Evaluation of Nine Instruments for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose

BACKGROUND Instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) should undergo a standardized evaluation including a user-test before being marketed. In this study the results from standardized evaluations of nine different SMBG instruments are presented, and the standardized evaluation is discussed. METHODS Approximately 80 diabetes patients using three lots of test strips participated in each evaluation. Half of the patients were educated in how to use the meter, and the evaluations were carried out by both medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) and patients. Questionnaires were used to assess the user manual and the user-friendliness of the instrument. RESULTS The imprecision obtained by the patients (coefficients of variation [CVs] of 3.2-8.1%) were generally higher compared to that by the MLT (CVs of 2.3-5.9%). Three of the nine instruments did not achieve the quality goal based on the recommendation in the International Organization for Standardizations ISO 15197 guideline in the hands of diabetes patients. The bias from the comparison method ranged from -10.4% to +3.2%. There were significant lot-to-lot variations and hematocrit effects for some of the instruments. Temperature difference between the instruments and the test strip caused deterioration of the quality in one instrument. The user-friendliness was in general acceptable. CONCLUSIONS The quality of instruments for SMBG seems to have improved during recent years, although there are still analytical problems. A standardized evaluation protocol is necessary and should be regularly revised taking into account the development of new technology and the needs of the patients.