Diagnostic Implications of an Elevated Troponin in the Emergency Department

Objective. To determine the proportion of initial troponin (cTn) elevations associated with Type I MI versus other cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diagnoses in an emergency department (ED) and whether or not a relationship exists between the cTn level and the likelihood of Type I MI. Background. In the ED, cTn is used as a screening test for myocardial injury. However, the differential diagnosis for an initial positive cTn result is not clear. Methods. Hospital medical records were retrospectively reviewed for visits associated with an initial positive troponin I-ultra (cTnI), ≥0.05 μg/L. Elevated cTnI levels were stratified into low (0.05–0.09), medium (0.1–0.99), or high (≥1.0). Discharge diagnoses were classified into 3 diagnostic groups (Type I MI, other cardiovascular, or noncardiovascular). Results. Of 23,731 ED visits, 4,928 (21%) had cTnI testing. Of those tested, 16.3% had initial cTnI ≥0.05. Among those with elevated cTn, 11% were classified as Type I MI, 34% had other cardiovascular diagnoses, and 55% had a noncardiovascular diagnosis. Type I MI was more common with high cTnI levels (41% incidence) than among subjects with medium (9%) or low (6%). Conclusion. A positive cTn is most likely a noncardiovascular diagnosis, but Type I MI is far more common with cTnI levels ≥1.0

Performance of Three Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Anti-S and One Anti-N Immunoassays for the Monitoring of Immune Status and Vaccine Response

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data

Limited Evidence for Use of a Black Race Modifier in eGFR Calculations: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Commonly used estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations include a Black race modifier (BRM) that was incorporated during equation derivation. Race is a social construct, and a poorly characterized variable that is applied inconsistently in clinical settings. The BRM results in higher eGFR for any creatinine concentration, implying fundamental differences in creatinine production or excretion in Black individuals compared to other populations. Equations without inclusion of the BRM have the potential to detect kidney disease earlier in patients at the greatest risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), but also has the potential to over-diagnose CKD or impact downstream clinical interventions. The purpose of this study was to use an evidence-based approach to systematically evaluate the literature relevant to the performance of the eGFR equations with and without the BRM and to examine the clinical impact of the use or removal. CONTENT PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing measured GFR to eGFR in racially diverse adult populations using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease or the 2009-Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration-creatinine equations based on standardized creatinine measurements. Additionally, we searched for studies comparing clinical use of eGFR calculated with and without the BRM. Here, 8632 unique publications were identified; an additional 3 studies were added post hoc. In total, 96 studies were subjected to further analysis and 44 studies were used to make a final assessment. SUMMARY There is limited published evidence to support the use of a BRM in eGFR equations

Cannabis positivity rates in 17 emergency departments across the United States with varying degrees of marijuana legalization.

BACKGROUND: Many states in the United States have progressed towards legalization of marijuana including decriminalization, medicinal and/or recreational use. We studied the impact of legalization on cannabis-related emergency department visits in states with varying degrees of legalization. METHODS: Seventeen healthcare institutions in fifteen states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington) participated. Cannabinoid immunoassay results and cannabis-related International Classification of Diseases (ninth and tenth versions) codes were obtained for emergency department visits over a 3- to 8-year period during various stages of legalization: no state laws, decriminalized, medical approval before dispensaries, medical dispensaries available, recreational approval before dispensaries and recreational dispensaries available. Trends and monthly rates of cannabinoid immunoassay and cannabis-related International Classification of Diseases code positivity were determined during these legalization periods. RESULTS: For most states, there was a significant increase in both cannabinoid immunoassay and International Classification of Diseases code positivity as legalization progressed; however, positivity rates differed. The availability of dispensaries may impact positivity in states with medical and/or recreational approval. In most states with no laws, there was a significant but smaller increase in cannabinoid immunoassay positivity rates. CONCLUSIONS: States may experience an increase in cannabis-related emergency department visits with progression toward marijuana legalization. The differences between states, including those in which no impact was seen, are likely multifactorial and include cultural norms, attitudes of local law enforcement, differing patient populations, legalization in surrounding states, availability of dispensaries, various ordering protocols in the emergency department, and the prevalence of non-regulated cannabis products