Francesco Dati

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) has recommended that an increased cardiac troponin should be defined as a measurement above the 99th percentile value of the reference group. A total imprecision (CV) at the decision limit of </=10% is recommended. However, peer-reviewed data on assay imprecision are lacking. The purpose of this study was to construct the clinically relevant imprecision profiles for each of the commercially available cardiac troponin assays. Pools of human sera containing cardiac troponin concentrations around the MI decision limit were assessed to identify the lowest concentration associated with a 10% CV. METHODS: Eight serum pools targeting different concentrations of cardiac troponin (I and T) were prepared and stored at -70 degrees C until usage. The cardiac troponin measurement protocol consisted of two replicates per specimen per run, and one run per day for 20 days, using two reagent lots and three calibrations. Manufacturers of each cardiac troponin assay directly performed the measurements. Data analysis for each assay was centralized and performed according to the NCCLS EP5-A guideline. RESULTS: The lowest concentrations (microg/L) providing a 10% CV were as follows: AxSYM, 1.22; ACS:180, 0.37; Centaur, 0.33; Immuno 1, 0.34; Access, 0.06; Vidas, 0.36; Liaison, 0.065; Dimension, 0.26; Opus, 0.90; Stratus CS, 0.10; Immulite, 0.32; Vitros ECi, 0.44; Elecsys, 0.04; AIA 21, 0.09. CONCLUSION: No cardiac troponin assay was able to achieve the 10% CV recommendation at the 99th percentile reference limit defined by the manufacturer.

BACKGROUND: As part of the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Contract for the Standardization of Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] Measurements, a study was performed in collaboration with the IFCC Working Group for the Standardization of Lp(a) Assays. The aims of the study, performed with the participation of 16 manufacturers and 6 research laboratories, were to evaluate the IFCC proposed reference material (PRM) for its ability to transfer an accuracy-based value to the immunoassay calibrators and to assess concordance in results among different methods. METHODS: Two different purified Lp(a) preparations with protein mass concentrations determined by amino acid analysis were used to calibrate the reference method. A Lp(a) value of 107 nmol/L was assigned to PRM. After uniformity of calibration was demonstrated in the 22 evaluated systems, Lp(a) was measured on 30 fresh-frozen sera covering a wide range of Lp(a) values and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] sizes. RESULTS: The among-laboratory CVs for these samples (6-31%) were, in general, higher than those obtained for PRM (2.8%) and the quality-control samples (14%, 12%, and 9%, respectively), reflecting the broad range of apo(a) sizes in the 30 samples and the sensitivity of most methods to apo(a) size heterogeneity. Thus, although all of the assays were uniformly calibrated through the use of PRM, no uniformity in results was achieved for the isoform-sensitive methods. CONCLUSIONS: Linear regression analyses indicated that to various degrees, apo(a) size heterogeneity affects the outcome of the immunochemical methods used to measure Lp(a). We have also shown that the inaccuracy of Lp(a) values determined by methods sensitive to apo(a) size significantly affects the assessment of individual risk status for coronary artery disease.

To minimize differences in apolipoprotein measurements among laboratories and methods, a standardization program involving common suitable reference material is needed. The Committee on Apolipoproteins of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry initiated a collaborative study for the standardization of test systems for measuring apolipoproteins (apo) A-I and B, with 25 company laboratories and three research laboratories involved in apolipoprotein analysis to: (a) evaluate calibration differences among the test systems; (b) evaluate whether comparability of the data can be achieved with the use of frozen serum pools to recalibrate the different systems; and (c) evaluate and select suitable candidate reference material. We used 26 test systems for apo A-I and 28 for apo B. Relatively modest differences were found in calibration for apo A-I, but very wide differences were observed for apo B methods. After uniform calibration, the overall among-laboratory CV for apo B decreased from 19% to 6%. Three lyophilized serum preparations for apo A-I and three liquid-stabilized serum preparations for apo B were selected for further evaluation as candidate international reference materials.

Quality-control surveys in recent years, in various parts of the world, have shown poor between-laboratory agreement for measurements of plasma proteins. Despite the existence of international reference materials distributed by the World Health Organization, standards produced by diagnostics manufacturers and professional organizations differ significantly in their ascribed values. The reasons for this are complex but include poor availability of the primary materials, confusion about their use, and the fact that their turbidity on reconstitution precludes their use in modern optical immunoassays. This unfortunate situation led to an important initiative to produce sufficient quantities of a widely available, optically clear secondary reference material for plasma proteins that could be used worldwide by manufacturers, professional organizations, and laboratories. Here we present an overview on how the laboratory community, including manufacturers, clinical laboratories, professional societies, and regulators, has reached what we consider is a successful conclusion to a difficult problem.

The release in 1993 of a new reference material for serum proteins, CRM 470/RPPHS 5 has given rise to a great improvement in the between-laboratory variability of serum protein measurements worldwide. Conversion to the new reference material results in significant changes in reference values for some proteins. The establishment of new reference ranges will take a considerable time, and in the interim several professional societies and diagnostic companies have agreed to use consensus reference ranges based on studies already undertaken.