Explore the vast range of titles available.

Standardized calibration does not change a creatinine measurement procedure's susceptibility to potentially interfering substances. 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. 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. 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.

Abstract Establishing metrological traceability to an assigned value of a matrix-based certified reference material (CRM) that has been validated to be commutable among available end-user measurement procedures (MPs) is central to producing equivalent results for the measurand in clinical samples (CSs) irrespective of the clinical laboratory MPs used. When a CRM is not commutable with CSs, the bias due to noncommutability will be propagated to the CS results causing incorrect metrological traceability to the CRM and nonequivalent CS results among different MPs. In a commutability assessment, a conclusion that a CRM is commutable or noncommutable for use with a specific MP is made when the difference in bias between the CRM and CSs meets or does not meet a criterion for that specific MP when compared to other MPs. A conclusion regarding commutability or noncommutability requires that the magnitude of the difference in bias observed in the commutability assessment remains unchanged over time. This conclusion requires the CRM to be stable and no substantive changes in the MPs. These conditions should be periodically reverified. If an available CRM is determined to be noncommutable for a specific MP, that CRM can be used in the calibration hierarchy for that MP when an appropriately validated MP-specific correction for the noncommutability bias is included. We describe with examples how a MP-specific correction and its uncertainty can be developed and applied in a calibration hierarchy to achieve metrological traceability of results for CSs to the CRM’s assigned value.

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.

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.

Cystatin C is becoming an increasingly popular biomarker for estimating glomerular filtration rate, and accurate measurements of cystatin C concentrations are necessary for accurate estimates of glomerular filtration rate. To assess the accuracy of cystatin C concentration measurements in laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists CYS Survey. Two fresh frozen serum pools, the first from apparently healthy donors and the second from patients with chronic kidney disease, were prepared and distributed to laboratories participating in the CYS Survey along with the 2 usual processed human plasma samples. Target values were established for each pool by using 2 immunoassays and ERM DA471/IFCC international reference material. For the normal fresh frozen pool (ERM-DA471/IFCC-traceable target of 0.960 mg/L), the all-method mean (SD, % coefficient of variation [CV]) reported by all of the 123 reporting laboratories was 0.894 mg/L (0.128 mg/L, 14.3%). For the chronic kidney disease pool (ERM-DA471/IFCC-traceable target of 2.37 mg/L), the all-method mean (SD, %CV) was 2.258 mg/L (0.288 mg/L, 12.8%). There were substantial method-specific biases (mean milligram per liter reported for the normal pool was 0.780 for Siemens, 0.870 for Gentian, 0.967 for Roche, 1.061 for Diazyme, and 0.970 for other/not specified reagents; and mean milligram per liter reported for the chronic kidney disease pool was 2.052 for Siemens, 2.312 for Gentian, 2.247 for Roche, 2.909 for Diazyme, and 2.413 for other/not specified reagents). Manufacturers need to improve the accuracy of cystatin C measurement procedures if cystatin C is to achieve its full potential as a biomarker for estimating glomerular filtration rate.

The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline on Chronic Kidney Disease (1) recommends calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using equations developed by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) for adults ≥18 years (2) and by the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) for ages <18 years (3). These equations were recommended because they used readily available information, serum/plasma/blood creatinine, plus age, sex, and race for adults, and height for children; and have been validated in large and diverse cohorts of people who had measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) as a basis for establishing accuracy.

Background: Measurement of circulating insulin may improve the classification and management of diabetes mellitus and assist in treating people with insulin resistance. Methods: A work group convened by the American Diabetes Association evaluated results for a panel of 39 single donor sera measured by 10 commercial insulin methods from 9 manufacturers against an isotope dilution–liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (IDMS) measurement procedure calibrated using purified recombinant insulin. We used a candidate primary (pure substance) reference material, pooled serum, and single donor sera to evaluate approaches to achieve improved agreement of results between the routine and reference measurement procedures. Results: Four of 10 methods had ≥95% of individual serum results within 32% of the IDMS concentrations. However, the bias vs IDMS was more than 15.5% for 7 of 10 methods in 36%–100% of individual samples. A purified recombinant insulin preparation used as a common calibrator did not improve harmonization of results among routine methods but was not used as instructed by all participants. Calibration using serum pools achieved bias <15.5% for nearly all results in the concentration range covered by the pools (>60 pmol/L). Calibration using a panel of individual sera was the most effective to improve harmonization of results over the full measuring range. Conclusions: Agreement among methods can be improved by establishing traceability to the IDMS procedure using a panel of native sera. Pooled sera may be useful as trueness control materials. The usefulness of the pure insulin primary reference material [candidate reference material for insulin (cRMI)] requires clarification of protocols used by manufacturers.