Head-to-head comparison of plasma cTnI concentration values measured with three high-sensitivity methods in a large Italian population of healthy volunteers and patients admitted to emergency department with acute coronary syndrome: A multi-center study

Abstract Background The study aim is to compare cTnI values measured with three high-sensitivity (hs) methods in apparently healthy volunteers and patients admitted to emergency department (ED) with acute coronary syndrome enrolled in a large multicentre study. Methods Heparinized plasma samples were collected from 1511 apparently healthy subjects from 8 Italian clinical institutions (mean age: 51.5 years, SD: 14.1 years, range: 18–65 years, F/M ratio:0.95). All volunteers denied chronic or acute diseases and had normal values of routine laboratory tests. Moreover, 1322 heparinized plasma sample were also collected by 9 Italian clinical institutions from patients admitted to ED with clinical symptoms typical of acute coronary syndrome. The reference study laboratory assayed all plasma samples with three hs-methods: Architect hs-cTnI, Access hs-cTnI and ADVIA Centaur XPT methods. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was also used to analyze the between-method differences among hs-cTnI assays. Results On average, a between-method difference of 31.2% CV was found among the results of hs-cTnI immunoassays. ADVIA Centaur XPT method measured higher cTnI values than Architect and Access methods. Moreover, 99th percentile URL values depended not only on age and sex of reference population, but also on the statistical approach used for calculation (robust non-parametric vs bootstrap). Conclusions Due to differences in concentrations and reference values, clinicians should be advised that plasma samples of the same patient should be measured for cTnI assay in the same laboratory. Specific clinical studies are needed to establish the most appropriate statistical approach to calculate the 99th percentile URL values for hs-cTnI methods

Evaluation of 99th percentile and reference change values of a high-sensitivity cTnI method: A multicenter study

Abstract Background The Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry (SIBioC) and the Italian Section of the European Ligand Assay Society (ELAS) have recently promoted a multicenter study (Italian hs-cTnI Study) with the aim to accurately evaluate analytical performances and reference values of the most popular cTnI methods commercially available in Italy. The aim of this article is to report the results of the Italian hs-cTnI Study concerning the evaluation of the 99th percentile URL and reference change (RCV) values around the 99th URL of the Access cTnI method. Materials and methods Heparinized plasma samples were collected from 1306 healthy adult volunteers by 8 Italian clinical centers. Every center collected from 50 to 150 plasma samples from healthy adult subjects. All volunteers denied the presence of chronic or acute diseases and had normal values of routine laboratory tests (including creatinine, electrolytes, glucose and blood counts). An older cohort of 457 adult subjects (mean age 63.0 years; SD 8.1 years, minimum 47 years, maximum 86 years) underwent also ECG and cardiac imaging analysis in order to exclude the presence of asymptomatic cardiac disease. Results and conclusions The results of the present study confirm that the Access hsTnI method using the DxI platform satisfies the two criteria required by international guidelines for high-sensitivity methods for cTn assay. Furthermore, the results of this study confirm that the calculation of the 99th percentile URL values are greatly affected not only by age and sex of the reference population, but also by the statistical approach used for calculation of cTnI distribution parameters

Harmonization of Determination of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Is It Always Possible?

A WHO standard was prepared with the aim of harmonizing assays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, but the issue is currently being debated. We re-evaluated a previously studied set of cases (108 specimens of 48 patients and 60 specimens of 20 vaccinated subjects, collected after 14 days from the first dose and 14 days and 3 months after a second dose of the Comirnaty BNT162b2 vaccine), calculating the ratios between the results of two methods (SARS-CoV-2 IgG anti-RBD, SNIBE, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA IgG, Euroimmun). In the vaccinated subjects, the ratios of the results between methods according to the WHO standard were relatively dispersed, but the harmonization results were good. On the other hand, in patient samples, the variability between tests was very high, and the harmonization was unsatisfactory (median ratios between methods 2.23, 10th–90th percentile: 1.1–5.6). Interestingly, in patient samples, the harmonization depends on the time from the onset of symptoms and greatly improves after 6 months since the diagnosis. Forty patient specimens and thirty-one of the vaccinated subjects after the second dose were also evaluated with a third method (Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (1st IS), Beckman Coulter), obtaining a similar trend. We can conclude that the actual effectiveness of harmonization between methods may vary depending on the scenario in which they will be used

Protocollo operativo per la verifica della comparabilit\ue0 dei risultati di laboratorio ottenuti su pi\uf9 procedure analitiche

Protocol to verify the comparability of quantitative laboratory results obtained with different measurementprocedures.With the growth and merging of clinical laboratories, very frequently analytical tests are performed onmultiple instruments within one or multiple locations. In these situations, there is the need of verifying thecomparability of patient results obtained with different analysers and/or different measurement procedures. Theimportance of this verification is further emphasised when considering that it is included into the ISO 15189specifications. This protocol provides step-by-step guidance on how to assess results comparability in differentscenarios. Up to four experimental designs are presented to meet laboratories\u2019 needs, with details and examples onfrequency of testing, definition of acceptability criteria, samples selection, sample size calculation, statistical analysisand reportin

A multicenter study for the evaluation of the reference interval for TSH in Italy (ELAS TSH Italian Study)

Background The aims of this study were: (1) to calculate reliable thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) reference intervals using laboratory databases; (2) to evaluate the relationship between TSH, sex and age values in different large Italian populations. Methods The TSH values stored in the laboratory information system of clinical laboratories of four Italian city hospitals, including 146,801 TSH measurements (with the respective age and sex data of individuals) were taken in consideration. Assuming a log-normal distribution, to log-transformed TSH values were applied the Dixon's iterative principle in order to exclude the outliers. At the end of this iterative process 142,821 log-transformed TSH results remained. The four clinical laboratories measured serum TSH concentrations using the same TSH immunoassay method (Access TSH 3rd IS, using UniCel DxI platform). Results The TSH reference interval calculated in the present study (0.362-5.280 mIU/L) is similar to that suggested by the manufacturer for the Access TSH 3rd IS assay (0.45-5.33 mIU/L). TSH values in females were significantly higher than in males (females: mean=2.06 mIU/L; standard deviation [SD]=1.26 mIU/L; n=101,243; males: mean=1.92 mIU/L; SD=1.19 mIU/L; n=41,578; p<0.0001). Moreover, a negative linear relationship was observed between TSH throughout all interval age values (from 0 to 105 years). Conclusions The results of the present multicenter study confirm that data mining techniques can be used to calculate clinically useful reference intervals for TSH. From a pathophysiological point of view, our results suggest that some Northern populations of Italy might still suffer some harmful effects on the thyroid gland due to mild to moderate iodine intake deficiency. Specific clinical trials are needed to confirm these results

Evaluation of the cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: role of cardiac-specific biomarkers. A consensus document by the Inter-Society Study Group on Cardiac Biomarkers of the Italian Societies of Clinical Biochemistry: European Ligand Assay Society (ELAS), Italian section; Societa Italiana di Biochimica Clinica e Biologia Molecolare Clinica (SIBioC); Societa Italiana di Patologia Clinica e Medicina di Laboratorio (SIPMel)

Major adverse cardiovascular events are frequently observed in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery during the peri-operative period. At this time, the possibility to predict cardiovascular events remains limited, despite the introduction of several algorithms to calculate the risk of adverse events, mainly death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) based on the clinical history, risk factors (sex, age, lipid profile, serum creatinine) and non-invasive cardiac exams (electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, stress tests). The cardiac-specific biomarkers natriuretic peptides (NPs) and cardiac troponins (cTn) have been proposed as additional tools for risk prediction in the peri-operative period, particularly for the identification of myocardial injury in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The prognostic information from the measurement of BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTn is independent and complementary to other important indicators of risk, also including ECG and imaging techniques. Elevated levels of cardiac-specific biomarkers before surgery are associated with a markedly higher risk of MACE during the peri-operative period. BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTn should be measured in all patients during the clinical evaluation before surgery, particularly during intermediate- or high-risk surgery, in patients aged >65 years and/or with comorbidities. Several questions remain to be assessed in dedicated clinical studies, such as how to optimize the management of patients with raised cardiac specific biomarkers before surgery, and whether a strategy based on biomarker measurement improves patient outcomes and is cost-effective