Search

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is becoming an increasingly popular way to perform laboratory tests closer to the patient. This option has several recognized advantages, such as accessibility, portability, speed, convenience, ease of use, ever-growing test panels, lower cumulative healthcare costs when used within appropriate clinical pathways, better patient empowerment and engagement, and reduction of certain pre-analytical errors, especially those related to specimen transportation. On the other hand, POCT also poses some limitations and risks, namely the risk of lower accuracy and reliability compared to traditional laboratory tests, quality control and connectivity issues, high dependence on operators (with varying levels of expertise or training), challenges related to patient data management, higher costs per individual test, regulatory and compliance issues such as the need for appropriate validation prior to clinical use (especially for rapid diagnostic tests; RDTs), as well as additional preanalytical sources of error that may remain undetected in this type of testing, which is usually based on whole blood samples (i.e., presence of interfering substances, clotting, hemolysis, etc.). There is no doubt that POCT is a breakthrough innovation in laboratory medicine, but the discussion on its appropriate use requires further debate and initiatives. This collective opinion paper, composed of abstracts of the lectures presented at the two-day expert meeting "Point-Of-Care-Testing: State of the Art and Perspective" (Venice, April 4-5, 2024), aims to provide a thoughtful overview of the state-of-the-art in POCT, its current applications, advantages and potential limitations, as well as some interesting reflections on the future perspectives of this particular field of laboratory medicine., (© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Advances in technology have transformed healthcare and laboratory medicine. Biosensors have emerged as a promising technology in healthcare, providing a way to monitor human physiological parameters in a continuous, real-time, and non-intrusive manner and offering value and benefits in a wide range of applications. This position statement aims to present the current situation around biosensors, their perspectives and importantly the need to set the framework for their validation and safe use. The development of a qualification framework for biosensors should be conceptually adopted and extended to cover digitally measured biomarkers from biosensors for advancing healthcare and achieving more individualized patient management and better patient outcome., (© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

As testing for infectious diseases moves from manual, biological testing such as complement fixation to high throughput automated autoanalyzer, the methods for controlling these assays have also changed to reflect those used in clinical chemistry. However, there are many differences between infectious disease serology and clinical chemistry testing, and these differences have not been considered when applying traditional quality control methods to serology. Infectious disease serology, which is highly regulated, detects antibodies of varying classes and to multiple and different antigens that change according to the organisms' genotype/serotype and stage of disease. Although the tests report a numerical value (usually signal to cut-off), they are not measuring an amount of antibodies, but the intensity of binding within the test system. All serology assays experience lot-to-lot variation, making the use of quality control methods used in clinical chemistry inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, the use of the manufacturer-provided kit controls is mandatory to validate the test run. Use of third-party controls, which are highly recommended by ISO 15189 and the World Health Organization, must be manufactured in a manner whereby they have minimal lot-to-lot variation and at a level where they detect exceptional variation. This paper outlines the differences between clinical chemistry and infectious disease serology and offers a range of recommendations when addressing the quality control of infectious disease serology., (© 2022 Wayne J. Dimech et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)