W. Greg Miller

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.

Proteinuria as a surrogate outcome in CKD: report of a scientific workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Changes in proteinuria have been suggested as a surrogate outcome for kidney disease progression to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. This report summarizes a workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the following goals: (1) to evaluate the strengths and limitations of criteria for assessment of proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point for clinical trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD), (2) to explore the strengths and limitations of available data for proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point, and (3) to delineate what more needs to be done to evaluate proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point. We review the importance of proteinuria in CKD, including the conceptual model for CKD, measurement of proteinuria and albuminuria, and epidemiological characteristics of albuminuria in the United States. We discuss surrogate end points in clinical trials of drug therapy, including criteria for drug approval, the definition of a surrogate end point, and criteria for evaluation of surrogacy based on biological plausibility, epidemiological characteristics, and clinical trials. Next, the report summarizes data for proteinuria as a potential surrogate outcome in 3 broad clinical areas: early diabetic kidney disease, nephrotic syndrome, and diseases with mild to moderate proteinuria. We conclude with a synthesis of data and recommendations for further research. At the present time, there appears to be sufficient evidence to recommend changes in proteinuria as a surrogate for kidney disease progression in only selected circumstances. Further research is needed to define additional contexts in which changes in proteinuria can be expected to predict treatment effect. We recommend collaboration among many groups, including academia, industry, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health, to share data from past and future studies.

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.

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.

Report of the IFCC Working Group for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests; Part 1: Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone

BACKGROUND Laboratory testing of serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is an essential tool for the diagnosis and management of various thyroid disorders whose collective prevalence lies between 4% and 8%. However, between-assay discrepancies in TSH results limit the application of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS We performed a method comparison study with 40 sera to assess the result comparability and performance attributes of 16 immunoassays. RESULTS Thirteen of 16 assays gave mean results within 10% of the overall mean. The difference between the most extreme means was 39%. Assay-specific biases could be eliminated by recalibration to the overall mean. After recalibration of singlicate results, all assays showed results within the biological total error goal (22.8%), except for 1 result in each of 4 assays. For a sample with a TSH concentration of 0.016 mIU/L, 6 assays either did not report results or demonstrated CVs >20%. Within-run and total imprecision ranged from 1.5% to 5.5% and 2.5% to 7.7%, respectively. Most assays were able to match the internal QC targets within 5%. Within-run drifts and shifts were observed. CONCLUSIONS Harmonization of TSH measurements would be particularly beneficial for 3 of the 16 examined assays. These data demonstrate that harmonization may be accomplished by establishing calibration traceability to the overall mean values for a panel of patient samples. However, the full impact of the approach must be further explored with a wider range of samples. Although a majority of assays showed excellent quality of performance, some would benefit from improved within-run stability.

Specimen materials, target values and commutability for external quality assessment (proficiency testing) schemes

BACKGROUND The objective of external quality assessment is to evaluate clinical acceptability of laboratory results. It is desirable to evaluate intermethod harmonization and traceability to a reference system. METHODS Conventional matrix-modified processed materials are used in most programs, because they can be produced in large quantities, can have multiple abnormal analytes in the same vial and have excellent stability. The principal limitation of these materials is non-commutability which makes them unsuitable for traceability or harmonization evaluation. Peer group evaluation is used which allows an individual laboratory to confirm appropriate use of a measurement technology and a manufacturer to monitor uniformity in their calibration transfer process. Authentic clinical specimen pools provide commutability but are limited by the quantity available and number of analytes at pathologic levels in the same vial. Hybrid approaches have used authentic clinical specimen pools in conjunction with non-commutable processed materials to determine method-specific matrix-corrected target values which have enabled evaluation of traceability to reference methods. CONCLUSIONS Conventional processed materials are limited by non-commutability. Pooled clinical specimens are limited by availability. When used together, external quality assessment can evaluate traceability to reference systems and harmonization between test procedures.

Report of the IFCC Working Group for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests; Part 2: Free Thyroxine and Free Triiodothyronine

BACKGROUND Free thyroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3) measurements are useful in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of thyroid disorders. The IFCC Scientific Division established a Working Group to resolve issues of method performance to meet clinical requirements. METHODS We compared results for measurement of a panel of single donor sera using clinical laboratory procedures based on equilibrium dialysis-isotope dilution-mass spectrometry (ED-ID-MS) (2 for FT4, 1 for FT3) and immunoassays from 9 manufacturers (15 for FT4, 13 for FT3) to a candidate international conventional reference measurement procedure (cRMP) also based on ED-ID-MS. RESULTS For FT4 (FT3), the mean bias of 2 (4) assays was within 10% of the cRMP, whereas for 15 (9) assays, negative biases up to -42% (-30%) were seen; 1 FT3 assay was positively biased by +22%. Recalibration to the cRMP eliminated assay-specific biases; however, sample-related effects remained, as judged from difference plots with biologic total error limits. Correlation coefficients to the cRMPs ranged for FT4 (FT3) from 0.92 to 0.78 (0.88 to 0.30). Within-run and total imprecision ranged for FT4 (FT3) from 1.0% to 11.1% (1.8% to 9.4%) and 1.5% to 14.1% (2.4% to 10.0%), respectively. Approximately half of the manufacturers matched the internal QC targets within approximately 5%; however, within-run instability was observed. CONCLUSIONS The study showed that most assays had bias largely correctable by establishing calibration traceability to a cRMP and that the majority performed well. Some assays, however, would benefit from improved precision, within-run stability, and between-run consistency.

Specificity Characteristics of 7 Commercial Creatinine Measurement Procedures by Enzymatic and Jaffe Method Principles

BACKGROUND Standardized calibration does not change a creatinine measurement procedures susceptibility to potentially interfering substances. METHODS We obtained individual residual serum or plasma samples (n = 365) from patients with 19 different disease categories associated with potentially interfering substances and from healthy controls. Additional sera at 0.9 mg/dL (80 μmol/L) and 3.8 mg/dL (336 μmol/L) creatinine were supplemented with acetoacetate, acetone, ascorbate, and pyruvate. We measured samples by 4 enzymatic and 3 Jaffe commercially available procedures and by a liquid chromatography/isotope dilution/mass spectrometry measurement procedure against which biases were determined. RESULTS The number of instances when 3 or more results in a disease category had biases greater than the limits of acceptability was 28 of 57 (49%) for Jaffe and 14 of 76 (18%) for enzymatic procedures. For the aggregate group of 59 diabetes samples with increased β-hydroxybutyrate, glucose, or glycosylated hemoglobin (Hb A(1c)), the enzymatic procedures had 10 biased results of 236 (4.2%) compared with 89 of 177 (50.3%) for the Jaffe procedures, and these interferences were highly procedure dependent. For supplemented sera, interferences were observed in 11 of 24 (46%) of groups for Jaffe and 8 of 32 (25%) of groups for enzymatic procedures and were different at low or high creatinine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS There were differences in both magnitude and direction of bias among measurement procedures, whether enzymatic or Jaffe. The influence of interfering substances was less frequent with the enzymatic procedures, but no procedure was unaffected. The details of implementation of a method principle influenced its susceptibility to potential interfering substances.

Non–HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population

BACKGROUND Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturers direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS For participants with triglycerides<2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and<4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.