Graham Jones

TEST 02 - Elsevier's Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Search and access research from the science, technology, medicine, social sciences and arts and humanities fields.

BACKGROUND: Elevated serum urate levels are associated with progression of chronic kidney disease. Whether urate-lowering treatment with allopurinol can attenuate the decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for progression is not known. METHODS: of body-surface area in the preceding year to receive allopurinol (100 to 300 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in eGFR from randomization to week 104, calculated with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation. RESULTS: per year [95% CI, -1.18 to 0.97]; P = 0.85). Serious adverse events were reported in 84 of 182 patients (46%) in the allopurinol group and in 79 of 181 patients (44%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic kidney disease and a high risk of progression, urate-lowering treatment with allopurinol did not slow the decline in eGFR as compared with placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; CKD-FIX Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000791932.).

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.

BACKGROUND Proficiency testing (PT), or external quality assessment (EQA), is intended to verify on a recurring basis that laboratory results conform to expectations for the quality required for patient care. CONTENT Key factors for interpreting PT/EQA results are knowledge of the commutability of the samples used and the process used for target value assignment. A commutable PT/EQA sample demonstrates the same numeric relationship between different measurement procedures as that expected for patients' samples. Noncommutable PT/EQA samples frequently have a matrix-related bias of unknown magnitude that limits interpretation of results. PT/EQA results for commutable samples can be used to assess accuracy against a reference measurement procedure or a designated comparison method. In addition, the agreement of the results between different measurement procedures for commutable samples reflects that which would be seen for patients' samples. PT/EQA results for noncommutable samples must be compared to a peer group mean/median of results from participants who use measurement procedures that are expected to have the same or very similar matrix-related bias. Peer group evaluation is used to asses whether a laboratory is using a measurement procedure in conformance to the manufacturer's specifications and/or in conformance to other laboratories using the same technology. A noncommutable PT/EQA sample does not give meaningful information about the relationship of results for patients' samples between different measurement procedures. SUMMARY PT/EQA provides substantial value to the practice of laboratory medicine by assessing the performance of individual laboratories and, when commutable samples are used, the status of standardization or harmonization among different measurement procedures.