Search

En el laboratorio clínico, la calibración de los procedimientos de medición es un aspecto clave a la hora de garantizar la fiabilidad de los resultados del paciente. A lo largo de los años, se han publicado multitud de publicaciones y procedimientos para la evaluación del control de calidad y la interpretación de sus resultados. En esta publicación, nos centraremos en un aspecto crítico, la calibración, ya que no existen publicaciones o directrices claras sobre metodologías de calibración. Por lo general, solo están disponibles las recomendaciones del fabricante del reactivo o instrumento. El propósito de esta revisión es ahondar en esta deficiencia, con el fin de suscitar un debate y mejorar la situación actual.

Calibration of an analytical measurement procedure is an important basis for the reliability of patient results. Many publications and as well as procedures on how to estimate quality control and interpret those results have been become available over the years. In this publication we are focusing on the critical part of the calibration as there are no clear communication or guidelines on how to perform it. Usually only the recommendation of the reagent or instrument manufacturer is available. We would like to point out this gap to invite for a discussion and improvement of the current situation.

Human blood is a self-regenerating lipid-rich biological fluid that is routinely collected in hospital settings. The inventory of lipid molecules found in blood plasma (plasma lipidome) offers insights into individual metabolism and physiology in health and disease. Disturbances in the plasma lipidome also occur in conditions that are not directly linked to lipid metabolism; therefore, plasma lipidomics based on MS is an emerging tool in an array of clinical diagnostics and disease management. However, challenges exist in the translation of such lipidomic data to clinical applications. These relate to the reproducibility, accuracy, and precision of lipid quantitation, study design, sample handling, and data sharing. This position paper emerged from a workshop that initiated a community-led process to elaborate and define a set of generally accepted guidelines for quantitative MS-based lipidomics of blood plasma or serum, with harmonization of data acquired on different instrumentation platforms across independent laboratories as an ultimate goal. We hope that other fields may benefit from and follow such a precedent.

Reference intervals depend on the distribution of results within a reference population and can be influenced by subclinical disease. Functional reference limits present an opportunity to derive clinically relevant reference limits from routinely collected data sources, which consist of mixed populations of unhealthy and healthy groups. Serum ferritin is a good example of the utility of functional reference limits. Several studies have identified clinically relevant reference limits through examining the relationship between serum ferritin and erythrocyte parameters. These ferritin functional limits often represent the inflection point at which erythrocyte parameters change significantly. Comparison of ferritin functional reference limits with those based on population distributional reference limits reveals that the lower reference limit may fall below the point at which patients become clinically unwell. Functional reference limits may be considered for any biomarker that exhibits a correlated relationship with other biomarkers.

Calibration of an analytical measurement procedure is an important basis for the reliability of patient results. Many publications and as well as procedures on how to estimate quality control and interpret those results have been become available over the years. In this publication we are focusing on the critical part of the calibration as there are no clear communication or guidelines on how to perform it. Usually only the recommendation of the reagent or instrument manufacturer is available. We would like to point out this gap to invite for a discussion and improvement of the current situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Plasma copeptin measurement is useful for the differential diagnoses of polyuria-polydipsia syndrome. It has also been proposed as a prognostic marker for cardiovascular diseases. However, limited information is available about the within- (CVI) and between-subject (CVG) biological variation (BV). This study presents BV estimates for copeptin in healthy individuals. Methods: Samples were collected weekly from 41 healthy subjects over 5 weeks and analyzed using the BRAHMS Copeptin proAVP KRYPTOR assay after at least 8 h of food and fluid abstinence. Outlier detection, variance homogeneity, and trend analysis were performed followed by CV-ANOVA for BV and analytical variation (CVA) estimation with 95% confidence intervals. Reference change values (RCVs), index of individuality (II), and analytical performance specification (APS) were also calculated. Results: The analysis included 178 results from 20 males and 202 values from 21 females. Copeptin concentrations were significantly higher in males than in females (mean 8.5 vs 5.2 pmol/L, P < 0.0001). CVI estimates were 18.0% (95% CI, 15.4%–21.6%) and 19.0% (95% CI, 16.4%–22.6%), for males and females, respectively; RCVs were −35% (decreasing value) and 54% (increasing value). There was marked individuality for copeptin. No result exceeded the diagnostic threshold (>21.4 pmol/L) for arginine vasopressin resistance. Conclusions: The availability of BV data allows for refined APS and associated II, and RCVs applicable as aids in the serial monitoring of patients with specific diseases such as heart failure. The BV estimates are only applicable in subjects who abstained from oral intake due to the rapid and marked effects of fluids on copeptin physiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interference from isomeric steroids is a potential cause of disparity between mass spectrometry-based 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17OHP) results. We aimed to assess the proficiency of mass spectrometry laboratories to report 17OHP in the presence of known isomeric steroids. A series of five samples were prepared using a previously demonstrated commutable approach. These samples included a control (spiked to 15.0 nmol/L 17OHP) and four challenge samples further enriched with equimolar concentrations of 17OHP isomers (11α-hydroxyprogesterone, 11β-hydroxyprogesterone, 16α-hydroxyprogesterone or 21-hydroxyprogesterone). These samples were distributed to 38 participating laboratories that reported serum 17OHP results using mass spectrometry in two external quality assurance programs. The result for each challenge sample was compared to the control sample submitted by each participant. Twenty-six laboratories (68 % of distribution) across three continents returned results. Twenty-five laboratories used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and one used gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to measure 17OHP. The all-method median of the control sample was 14.3 nmol/L, ranging from 12.4 to 17.6 nmol/L. One laboratory had results that approached the lower limit of tolerance (minus 17.7 % of the control sample), suggesting the isomeric steroid caused an irregular result. Most participating laboratories demonstrated their ability to reliably measure 17OHP in the presence of the four clinically relevant isomeric steroids. The performance of the 12 (32 %) laboratories that did not engage in this activity remains unclear. We recommend that all laboratories offering LC-MS/MS analysis of 17OHP in serum, plasma, or dried bloodspots determine that the isomeric steroids are appropriately separated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monoclonal gammopathy (MG) is a spectrum of diseases ranging from the benign asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to the malignant multiple myeloma. Clinical guidelines and laboratory recommendations have been developed to inform best practices in the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of MG. In this review, the pathophysiology, relevant laboratory testing recommended in clinical practice guidelines and laboratory recommendations related to MG testing and reporting are examined. The clinical guidelines recommend serum protein electrophoresis, serum immunofixation and serum free light chain measurement as initial screening. The laboratory recommendations omit serum immunofixation as it offers limited additional diagnostic value. The laboratory recommendations offer guidance on reporting findings beyond monoclonal protein, which was not required by the clinical guidelines. The clinical guidelines suggested monitoring total IgA concentration by turbidimetry or nephelometry method if the monoclonal protein migrates in the non-gamma region, whereas the laboratory recommendations make allowance for involved IgM and IgG. Additionally, several external quality assurance programs for MG protein electrophoresis and free light chain testing are also appraised. The external quality assurance programs show varied assessment criteria for protein electrophoresis reporting and unit of measurement. There is also significant disparity in reported monoclonal protein concentrations with wide inter-method analytical variation noted for both monoclonal protein quantification and serum free light chain measurement, however this variation appears smaller when the same method was used. Greater harmonization among laboratory recommendations and reporting format may improve clinical interpretation of MG testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]