Search

International audience; Using serum samples routinely collected in 9144 adults from a French general population-based cohort, we identified 353 participants with a positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, among whom 13 were sampled between November 2019 and January 2020 and were confirmed by neutralizing antibodies testing. Investigations in 11 of these participants revealed experience of symptoms possibly related to a SARS-CoV-2 infection or situations at risk of potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This suggests early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.

Objective To estimate the prevalence of spondyloarthritis (SpA) in reference to HLA-B27 in the French population. Methods In 1989, 20 625 employees of the French national gas and electricity company aged 35–50 years were enrolled in the GAZEL cohort. In 2010, 18 757 still active participants were screened by a questionnaire validated for the detection of SpA. Responders with available DNA were retained for further studies. Pelvic radiograph and HLA-B27 typing were performed in all the self-reported cases of SpA or psoriatic arthritis. Self-reported diagnosis was verified by a qualified rheumatologist. HLA-B27 determination was also performed in subjects without any SpA feature. Results The target population consisted of 6556 responders with available DNA. Their male:female ratio was 3.6 and their mean age was 65.5±3.3 years. A diagnosis of SpA was confirmed in 32 of the 72 self-reported cases, 75% of them being HLA-B27 positive. Estimated SpA prevalence adjusted for sex was 0.43% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.70%). HLA-B27 positivity rate in 2466 healthy controls was 6.9% (95% CI 5.9% to 7.9%). The relative risk of SpA in HLA-B27 positive individuals was 39 (95% CI 17 to 86). Conclusions We estimated the prevalence of SpA in the French population in 2010 to 0.43%. With an estimated prevalence of 75.0% in SpA and 6.9% in healthy controls, HLA-B27 increased the disease risk 39-fold, as compared with HLA-B27 negative subjects.

This document is based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). This document summarizes proposals for recommendations on: (i) The terminology, which is often confusing, noticeably concerning the terms of reference limits and decision limits. (ii) The method for the determination of reference limits according to the original procedure and the conditions, which should be used. (iii) A simple procedure allowing the medical laboratories to fulfill the requirements of the regulation and standards. The updated document proposes to verify that published reference limits are applicable to the laboratory involved. Finally, the strengths and limits of the revised recommendations (especially the selection of the reference population, the maintenance of the analytical quality, the choice of the statistical method used…) will be briefly discussed.

Based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC-LM), updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC-LM and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). This article summarises these new proposals: (1) defining more precisely the terminology, which is often confusing, noticeably concerning the terms of reference limits and decision limits; (2) showing the different steps for determining reference limits according to the original procedure and the conditions which should be respected and (3) proposing a simple methodology allowing to the Clinical Laboratories to satisfy the needs of the Regulation and Standards. The updated document proposes to verify if published reference limits are applicable to the Laboratory involved. Finally the strengths and limits of the revised recommendations (noticeably the selection of the reference population, the maintenance of the analytical quality, the choice of the statistical methodology, etc.) will be briefly discussed.

Background: A new reference material for the liver enzyme aspartate transaminase (AST) (L-aspartate: 2-oxoglutarate-aminotransferase, EC 2.6.1.1), also called aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT), has been developed under the code ERM-AD457/IFCC. This certified reference material (CRM) for AST has been produced from a human type recombinant AST expressed in Escherichia coli and a buffer containing bovine serum albumin, and has been lyophilised. Methods: The homogeneity and the stability of the material have been tested and the catalytic activity concentration has been characterised by 12 laboratories using the reference procedure for AST at 37°C from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). Results: The certified catalytic activity concentration and certified uncertainty of AST in the reconstituted material are (1.74±0.05) μkat/L or (104.6±2.7) U/L (with a coverage factor k=2; 95% confidence interval). Conclusions: Both the certified value and uncertainty are traceable to the International System of Units (SI). The material is aiming to control the IFCC reference procedure for AST at 37°C, which will then be used to assign values to calibrants and control materials. The present paper highlights the scientific challenges and innovations which were encountered during the development of this new CRM. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:795–803.

Based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) dating back to the 1980s, updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC and the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI). Whereas the theory and the fundamentals of the reference value concept (definition, selection of reference individuals, preanalytical and analytical requirements, analysis of reference values) have not been modified, the updated guidelines add valuable improvements (transference, validation and verifying reference intervals). However, certain limitations remain which will be discussed in the present article.

Background: Reference intervals for serum creatinine remain relevant despite the current emphasis on the use of the estimated glomerular filtration rate for assessing renal function. Many studies on creatinine reference values have been published in the last 20 years. Using criteria derived from published IFCC documents, we sought to identify universally applicable reference intervals for creatinine via a systematic review of the literature.Methods: Studies were selected for inclusion in the systematic review only if the following criteria were met: (a) reference individuals were selected using an “a priori” selection scheme, (b) preanalytical conditions were adequately described; (c) traceability of the produced results to the isotope dilution–mass spectrometry (IDMS) reference method was demonstrated experimentally, and (d) the collected data received adequate statistical treatment.Results: Of 37 reports dealing specifically with serum creatinine reference values, only 1 report with pediatric data and 5 reports with adult data met these criteria. The primary reason for exclusion of most papers was an inadequate demonstration of measurement traceability. Based on the data of the selected studies, we have collated recommended reference intervals for white adults and children.Conclusion: Laboratories using methods producing traceable results to IDMS can apply the selected reference intervals for serum creatinine in evaluating white individuals.

The GAZEL Cohort Study set up in 1989 is a general-purpose epidemiologic cohort. At inception in 1989, the cohort included 20,625 volunteers then aged from 35-50 (women; n= 5,614) or 40-50 (men; n= 15,011). The data collected routinely come from different sources, mainly annual self-administered questionnaires, socioeconomic and health administrative data, health examinations, and causes of death. The epidemiologic database is maintained and stored by our group in our own facilities; the biobank is stored in the “Centre de ressources biologiques”, in Dijon, France. Today, more than 50 epidemiological projects on diversified themes have been set up in the GAZEL Cohort Study by some 30 French and foreign teams.

Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration was determined for 3605 subjects using an immunonephelometric assay improved to provide greater sensitivity. Subjects were from 5 to 75 years old and belonging to 1003 nuclear families recruited from the Stanislas Coh o rt Study between January 1994 and August 1995. Sample values for CRP ranged from 0.17 mg/l to 100 mg/l. Geometric means (mean − SD; mean + SD) were in the 5–14 years old group 0.37 (0.17–1.07) mg/l, in the 15–28 years old group 0.47 (0.17–1.38) mg/l and in the 29–75 years old group 0.98 (0.34–2.85) mg/l. For women, the geometric means were 0.38 (0.17–1.10) mg/l, 0.62 (0.20–1.90) mg/l and 0.98 mg/l (0.31–3.13) mg/l respectively. The interindividual variability ranged from 138% to 759% among different age classes. Biological factors associated with CRP concentration variations were examined and accounted for 25% of the CRP variability in men and 40% in women. The main biological factors statistically associated with CRP concentration variations in men were: drugs, leukocyte count, body mass index, tobacco consumption, age, and in women: drugs, leukocyte count, age, body mass index and hemoglobin concentration. These factors were used to define the exclusion and partition criteria when obtaining the reference samples. Medians for reference values ranged from 0.20 to 0.68 mg/l in males and from 0.20 to 0.78 mg/l in women.

The history of the theory of reference values can be written as an unfinished symphony. The first movement, allegro con fuoco, played from 1960 to 1980: a mix of themes devoted to the study of biological variability (intra-, inter-individual, short- and long-term), preanalytical conditions, standardization of analytical methods, quality control, statistical tools for deriving reference limits, all of them complex variations developed on a central melody: the new concept of reference values that would replace the notion of normality whose definition was unclear. Additional contributions (multivariate reference values, use of reference limits from broad sets of patient data, drug interferences) conclude the movement on the variability of laboratory tests. The second movement, adagio, from 1980 to 2000, slowly develops and implements initial works. International and national recommendations were published by the IFCC-LM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) and scientific societies [French (SFBC), Spanish (SEQC), Scandinavian societies…]. Reference values are now topics of many textbooks and of several congresses, workshops, and round tables that are organized all over the world. Nowadays, reference values are part of current practice in all clinical laboratories, but not without difficulties, particularly for some laboratories to produce their own reference values and the unsuitability of the concept with respect to new technologies such as HPLC, GCMS, and PCR assays. Clinicians through consensus groups and practice guidelines have introduced their own tools, the decision limits, likelihood ratios and Reference Change Value (RCV), creating confusion among laboratorians and clinicians in substituting reference values and decision limits in laboratory reports. The rapid development of personalized medicine will eventually call for the use of individual reference values. The beginning of the second millennium is played allegro ma non-troppo from 2000 to 2012: the theory of reference values is back into fashion. The need to revise the concept is emerging. The manufacturers make a friendly pressure to facilitate the integration of Reference Intervals (RIs) in their technical documentation. Laboratorians are anxiously awaiting the solutions for what to do. The IFCC-LM creates Reference Intervals and Decision Limits Committee (C-RIDL) in 2005. Simultaneously, a joint working group IFCC-CLSI is created on the same topic. In 2008 the initial recommendations of IFCC-LM are revised and new guidelines are published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI C28-A3). Fundamentals of the theory of reference values are not changed, but new avenues are explored: RIs transference, multicenter reference intervals, and a robust method for deriving RIs from small number of subjects. Concomitantly, other statistical methods are published such as bootstraps calculation and partitioning procedures. An alternative to recruiting healthy subjects proposes the use of biobanks conditional to the availability of controlled preanalytical conditions and of bioclinical data. The scope is also widening to include veterinary biology! During the early 2000s, several groups proposed the concept of ‘Universal RIs’ or ‘Global RIs’. Still controversial, their applications await further investigations. The fourth movement, finale: beyond the methodological issues (statistical and analytical essentially), important questions remain unanswered. Do RIs intervene appropriately in medical decision-making? Are RIs really useful to the clinicians? Are evidence-based decision limits more appropriate? It should be appreciated that many laboratory tests represent a continuum that weakens the relevance of RIs. In addition, the boundaries between healthy and pathological states are shady areas influenced by many biological factors. In such a case the use of a single threshold is questionable. Wherever it will apply, individual reference values and reference change values have their place. A variation on an old theme! It is strange that in the period of personalized medicine (that is more stratified medicine), the concept of reference values which is based on stratification of homogeneous subgroups of healthy people could not be discussed and developed in conjunction with the stratification of sick patients. That is our message for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Prospects are broad, enthusiasm is not lacking: much remains to be done, good luck for the new generations!

Since its establishment, the Center for Preventive Medicine in Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France, performed specific studies on healthy humans, and its approach was very useful for defining reference values. Prevention should extend its interest to chronic diseases. The majority of important adult disorders are partially genetically determined. Genetic markers are also useful as exclusion or as partition criteria in the production of reference values. Results are presented that were obtained for apolipoproteins E, B and AIV, frequencies of these polymorphisms in the Lorraine population, and relationships between these polymorphisms and lipid metabolism-related parameters. Health checkup centers, in particular those involved in family screening, are well suited for reassembling many data concerning environmental factors: tobacco consumption, alimentation habits, or alcohol and drug consumption. Simultaneous determination of genetic markers could allow the determination of an individual’s susceptibility or resistance to developing a disease and to prepare a preventive action.

Background: Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT) measurements are important for the assessment of liver damage. The aim of this study was to define the reference intervals (RIs) for these enzymes in adults, paying attention to standardization of the methods used and careful selection of the reference population. Methods: AST, ALT and GGT were measured with commercial analytical systems standardized to the IFCC-recommended reference measurement systems. Three centers (two in Italy and one in China) measured their own freshly collected samples; one of these centers also measured frozen samples from the Nordic Countries RI Project and from a Turkish center. RIs were generated using non-parametric techniques from the results of 765 individuals (411 females and 354 males, 18–85 years old) selected on the basis of the results of other laboratory tests and a specific questionnaire. Results: AST results from the four regions (Milan, Beijing, Bursa and Nordic Countries) were statistically different, but these differences were too small to be clinically relevant. Likewise, differences between the upper reference limits for genders was only 1.7 U/L (0.03 μkat/L), allowing a single RI of 11–34 U/L (0.18–0.57 μkat/L) to be defined. Interregional differences were not statistically significant for ALT, but partitioning was required due to significant gender differences. RIs for ALT were 8–41 U/L (0.13–0.68 μkat/L) for females and 9–59 U/L (0.15–0.99 μkat/L) for males, respectively. The upper reference limits for GGT from the Nordic Country population were higher than those from the other three regions and results from this group were excluded from final calculations. The GGT RIs were 6–40 U/L (0.11–0.66 μkat/L) for females and 12–68 U/L (0.20– 1.13 μkat/L) for males, respectively. Conclusions: For AST and ALT, the implementation of common RIs appears to be possible, because no differences between regions were observed. However, a common RI for GGT that is applicable worldwide appears unlikely due to differences among populations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1593–601.

BACKGROUND The improvement of the consistency of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) activity results among different assays after calibration with a common material was estimated. We evaluated if this harmonization could lead to reference limits common to different routine methods. METHODS Seven laboratories measured GGT activity using their own routine analytical system both according to the manufacturer's recommendation and after calibration with a multi-enzyme calibrator [value assigned by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference procedure]. All samples were re-measured using the IFCC reference procedure. Two groups of subjects were selected in each laboratory: a group of healthy men aged 18-25 years without long-term medication and with alcohol consumption less than 44 g/day and a group of subjects with elevated GGT activity. RESULTS The day-to-day coefficients of variation were less than 2.9% in each laboratory. The means obtained in the group of healthy subjects without common calibration (range of the means 16-23 U/L) were significantly different from those obtained by the IFCC procedure in five laboratories. After calibration, the means remained significantly different from the IFCC procedure results in only one laboratory. For three calibrated methods, the slope values of linear regression vs. the IFCC procedure were not different from the value 1. The results obtained with these three methods for healthy subjects (n=117) were gathered and reference limits were calculated. These were 11-49 U/L (2.5th-97.5th percentiles). The calibration also improved the consistency of elevated results when compared to the IFCC procedure. CONCLUSIONS The common calibration improved the level of consistency between different routine methods. It permitted to define common reference limits which are quite similar to those proposed by the IFCC. This approach should lead to a real benefit in terms of prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring and for epidemiological studies.

The aim of the present work was to compare in a supposed healthy population of 680 subjects several algorithms for positive selection of urine samples requiring microscopic examination for erythrocytes and leukocytes after screening by automated test-strip measurement and particle counting on a Sysmex UF-50™ flow cytometer. Four strategies have been formulated and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false positive rate, false negative rate, and microscopic review rate were measured. The strategy combining test strip analysis and automated counting on all samples, followed by microscopic examination of only discordant samples gave the best results. When the two methods of haematuria screening were in agreement (91% of samples), the false negative rate for microscopy was 1.1%, with a false positive rate of 0.8%, sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 99%, and the results are acceptable without any other examination. When the two methods of haematuria screening were discrepant, visual microscopic analysis was necessary to obtain definitive results. For leukocyturia screening, 80% of results were in agreement by test strip and automatic sediment urinalysis, with only ten results considered as false negatives (1.8%) and four as false positives (0.7%). Agreement was good and the other criteria were good (sensitivity 79%, specificity 99%). On conflicting samples, there was no agreement between methods and microscopic analysis was essential. The benefit of such an algorithm would be optimisation of the workflow without any loss of sensitivity and specificity at the expense of a two-fold increase in cost.

High sensitivity C-reactive protein is a useful marker in clinical practice; however, reference intervals are not available for all age groups. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine reference intervals for elderly people. The non-parametric reference limits were calculated for the two genders, subdivided into two age classes (50-64 and 65-91 years). In our selected sample population, we did not observe significant gender differences.

Abstract The reference values concept has been adopted by health care professionals, including clinical chemists, laboratory scientists, and clinicians and simultaneously by all the official organizations in charge of the establishment of legislation. But the estimation of reference limits, and the evaluation of biological variability need to be improved at the level of the procedures, which are currently too long and too expensive and not feasible easily for all laboratories. The procedures for obtaining reference values, if we follow the original documents, are complex, and that is the main reason that clinical chemists or diagnostic kit manufacturers have not used them systematically. There is clearly a need that scientific societies and international organizations propose practical recommendations: 1) Recommendations to describe methods linked to systematic error. · How to transfer reference limits from one laboratory to another laboratory using different methods? · Should we determine reference limits for each method? · How can we differentiate bias due to the populations from these due to the method? Clear collaborations with manufacturers involved in kits and diagnostic systems are needed. 2) Practical recommendations linked to the reference population. · How to transfer reference limits from one laboratory to another laboratory using different methods? · Should we determine reference limits for each method? · How can we differentiate bias due to the populations from these due to the method? Clear collaborations with manufacturers involved in kits and diagnostic systems are needed. · How to select a homogenous population? (Careful recommendations on the choice between healthy individuals, blood donors and individuals hospitalised for other diseases should be given.) · How to estimate ethnic differences? · How to define the exclusion and inclusion criteria according to quantity? · How to deal with the question of reference limits for unstable periods, aging or old people particularly, when the difference between aging and disease is very difficult to define? 3) Practical recommendations on the statistical methods to be used. · How to transfer reference limits from one laboratory to another laboratory using different methods? · Should we determine reference limits for each method? · How can we differentiate bias due to the populations from these due to the method? Clear collaborations with manufacturers involved in kits and diagnostic systems are needed. · How to select a homogenous population? (Careful recommendations on the choice between healthy individuals, blood donors and individuals hospitalised for other diseases should be given.) · How to estimate ethnic differences? · How to define the exclusion and inclusion criteria according to quantity? · How to deal with the question of reference limits for unstable periods, aging or old people particularly, when the difference between aging and disease is very difficult to define? · How to make a good choice of the interquantile interval? Should we use and present only the centiles 2.5 or 97.5, or on the contrary should we give other centiles in addition, for example 5, 10, 75, 80, 85, 90? 4) Practical recommendations linked to the use of the concept of the reference values. · How to transfer reference limits from one laboratory to another laboratory using different methods? · Should we determine reference limits for each method? · How can we differentiate bias due to the populations from these due to the method? Clear collaborations with manufacturers involved in kits and diagnostic systems are needed. · How to select a homogenous population? (Careful recommendations on the choice between healthy individuals, blood donors and individuals hospitalised for other diseases should be given.) · How to estimate ethnic differences? · How to define the exclusion and inclusion criteria according to quantity? · How to deal with the question of reference limits for unstable periods, aging or old people particularly, when the difference between aging and disease is very difficult to define? · How to make a good choice of the interquantile interval? Should we use and present only the centiles 2.5 or 97.5, or on the contrary should we give other centiles in addition, for example 5, 10, 75, 80, 85, 90? · How to make this concept more concrete and to have official definitions which are better understandable and not only abstract? · How to demonstrate the value of using simultaneously reference limits and decision limits, and what does each of these limits bring to results interpretation? · How to improve the presentation of the results? How to give more information on biological variability in the laboratory data, taking into account the scientific validity of their determination? Should we use new information techniques and new communication systems for reaching these objectives? The responses to all these questions could only be provided if there is a concerted effort at the international level. Practical recommendations should be given, which would be very useful for a better understanding and use of reference values by laboratory scientists and clinicians.

Fibrinogen is considered to be a strong predictor and independent factor of cardiovascular diseases. The data presented here describe the baseline measurements of fibrinogen in 1008 apparently healthy subjects, aged 4-60 years and their relationship to age, sex, body weight, smoking, alcohol, and use of oral contraceptives. Pearson's correlations and a linear multiple regression model were used. Plasma fibrinogen was measured kinetically in a photometer, the Behring Chromotimer, using the CTS-fibrinogen method. There were neither statistical difference between girls and boys aged 4-20 years nor correlation with variables related to cardiovascular diseases. In adults, we found an increase of plasma fibrinogen concentration with age and no statistical difference between men and women, except in subjects aged 40-50 years. There was a positive correlation between fibrinogen and ponderal index. In women aged 20-30, 30-40, 40-50 and 50-60 years, the mean fibrinogen concentrations increased of 0.009, 0.021, 0.010 and 0.015 g/l for one percent of overweight, in each subgroup respectively. In women aged 20-30 years using oral contraceptives, the mean fibrinogen concentration was 0.19 g/l higher than in women not using oral contraceptives. The smoking effect was observed only in 30-40 year-old men. Each cigarette smoked per day increases of the mean fibrinogen by 0.35 g/l after standardization for ponderal index and alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption was negatively correlated to plasma fibrinogen in subjects 30-40 years old. In women, 1 g of alcohol per day induces a 0.008 g/l decrease in the mean fibrinogen while in men the decrease is 0.004 g/l.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)1008 healthy subjects (510 men and 498 women) aged 4-60 years were studied. 109 women, aged 20-30 years and 40-50 years, were taking oral contraceptives. Plasma fibrinogen was measured kinetically in a photometer, the Behring Chromotimer. Day-to-day controls were tested using CTS-control plasma (Behring). The Student's t-test showed that there was no statistical difference between the sexes except in subjects aged 40-50 years (mean +or- standard deviation [SD] for men = 2.99 +or- 0.59 gm/l [n = 125] vs. 2.81 +or- 0.50 gm/l for women [n = 90], p = 0.017). Fibrinogen was higher in children and adolescents than in adults aged 20-30 years. There were statistically significant differences between children aged 4-14 years and adults aged 20-30 years. 54 boys had a mean +or- SD = 3.07 +or- 0.57 gm/l compared with 109 men with 2.65 +or- 0.52 gm/l (p 0.001). From age 30, plasma fibrinogen increased steadily in both women and men. In adults, a significant effect of smoking appeared only in men aged 30-40 years. Each cigarette smoked per day increased the mean fibrinogen by 0.35 gm/l. In men aged 20-50 years the fibrinogen varied from 2.785 gm/l +or- 0.564 (mean +or- SD) in nonsmokers (n = 163) to 2.974 +or- 0.615 (mean +or- SD) in men (n = 119) smoking more than 10 cigarettes/day. Alcohol consumption was negatively correlated to plasma fibrinogen in subjects aged 30-40. In women 1 gm of alcohol/day induced a 0.008 gm/l decrease of mean fibrinogen. In men the decrease was 0.004 gm/l of alcohol/day. Regression analysis showed that the fibrinogen concentration increased by 0.1, 0.21, 0.1, and 0.15 gm/l/10% overweight for women aged 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, and 50-60 years, respectively. In women aged 20-30 taking oral contraceptives the mean fibrinogen concentration was significantly (0.19 gm/l) higher, weight for weight, than in the women not taking them.

Background Prospective cohorts represent an essential design for epidemiological studies and allow for the study of the combined effects of lifestyle, environment, genetic predisposition, and other risk factors on a large variety of disease endpoints. The CONSTANCES cohort is intended to provide public health information and to serve as an "open epidemiologic laboratory" accessible to the epidemiologic research community. Although designed as a "general-purpose" cohort with very broad coverage, it will particularly focus on occupational and social determinants of health, and on aging. Methods/Design The CONSTANCES cohort is designed as a randomly selected representative sample of French adults aged 18-69 years at inception; 200,000 subjects will be included over a five-year period. At inclusion, the selected subjects will be invited to fill a questionnaire and to attend a Health Screening Center (HSC) for a comprehensive health examination: weight, height, blood pressure, electrocardiogram, vision, auditory, spirometry, and biological parameters; for those aged 45 years and older, a specific work-up of functional, physical, and cognitive capacities will be performed. A biobank will be set up. The follow-up includes a yearly self-administered questionnaire, and a periodic visit to an HSC. Social and work-related events and health data will be collected from the French national retirement, health and death databases. The data that will be collected include social and demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, life events, behaviors, and occupational factors. The health data will cover a wide spectrum: self-reported health scales, reported prevalent and incident diseases, long-term chronic diseases and hospitalizations, sick-leaves, handicaps, limitations, disabilities and injuries, healthcare utilization and services provided, and causes of death. To take into account non-participation at inclusion and attrition throughout the longitudinal follow-up, a cohort of non-participants will be set up and followed through the same national databases as participants. A field-pilot was performed in 2010 in seven HSCs, which included about 3,500 subjects; it showed a satisfactory structure of the sample and a good validity of the collected data. Discussion The constitution of the full eligible sample is planned during the last trimester of 2010, and the cohort will be launched at the beginning of 2011.