Guidance on Which Calibrators in a Metrologically Traceable Calibration Hierarchy Must Be Commutable with Clinical Samples

An improved implementation of metrological traceability concepts is needed to benefit from standardization of laboratory results

Non-harmonization of laboratory results represents a concrete risk for patient safety. To avoid harms, it is agreed that measurements by in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MD) on clinical samples should be traceable to higher-order references and adjusted to give the same result. However, metrological traceability is not a formal claim and has to be correctly implemented, which in practice does not happen for a non-negligible number of measurands. Stakeholders, such as higher-order reference providers, IVD manufacturers, and External Quality Assessment organizers, have major responsibilities and should improve their contribution by unambiguously and rigorously applying what is described in the International Organization for Standardization 17511:2020 standard and other documents provided by the international scientific bodies, such as Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine and IFCC. For their part, laboratory professionals should take responsibility to abandon non-selective methods and move to IVD-MDs displaying proper selectivity, which is one of the indispensable prerequisites for the correct implementation of metrological traceability. The practicality of metrological traceability concepts is not impossible but relevant education and appropriate training of all involved stakeholders are essential to obtain the expected benefits in terms of standardization.

External quality assurance in the era of standardization

Metrology in clinical chemistry aims to ensure the equivalence of measurement results from different in-vitro diagnostic measurement devices (IVD MD) for use in healthcare. The metrological traceability of measurement results to higher-order references is the cornerstone to achieving equivalent results. However, other fundamentals are also needed, including the commutability of reference materials and external quality assessment (EQA) materials for monitoring the equivalence of measurement results at the end-user level. This manuscript summarizes the findings and opinions expressed at the Joint Community for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) workshop held on December 4-5, 2023. The workshop explored the relationship between EQA/proficiency testing and metrological traceability to higher-order references. EQA monitors the equivalence of measurement results from end-user IVD MDs. The workshop discussed the role and challenges of using EQA to improve and maintain the equivalence of measurement results. It also elucidated current developments in establishing the clinical suitability of laboratory results expressed as analytical performance specifications (APS).

The role of analytical performance specifications in international guidelines and standards dealing with metrological traceability in laboratory medicine

The goal of metrological traceability is to have equivalent results for a measurand in clinical samples (CSs) irrespective of the in-vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD-MD) used for measurements. The International Standards Organization standard 17511 defines requirements for establishing metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators, trueness control materials and human samples used with IVD-MDs. Each step in metrological traceability has an uncertainty associated with the value assigned to a material. The uncertainty at each step adds to the uncertainty from preceding steps such that the combined uncertainty gets larger at each step. The combined uncertainty for a CS result must fulfil an analytical performance specification (APS) for the maximum allowable uncertainty (umax CS). The umax CS can be partitioned among the steps in a metrological traceability calibration hierarachy to derive the APS for maximum allowable uncertainty at each step. Similarly, the criterion for maximum acceptable noncommutability bias can be derived from the umax CS. One of the challenges in determining if umax CS is fulfilled is determining the repeatability uncertainty (u Rw) from operating an IVD-MD within a clinical laboratory. Most of the current recommendations for estimating u Rw from internal quality control data do not use a sufficiently representative time interval to capture all relevant sources of variability in measurement results. Consequently, underestimation of u Rw is common and may compromise assessment of how well current IVD-MDs and their supporting calibration hierarchies meet the needs of clinical care providers.

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal IgG mass fraction by isotope dilution mass spectrometry

The availability of serology assays to measure antibodies against the SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) expanded rapidly during the Covid-19 pandemic. The interchangeable use of such assays to monitor disease progression and immune protection requires their standardization, for which suitably characterized monoclonal antibody materials can be useful. The methods, based on isotope dilution mass spectrometry, to value assign the mass fraction of such a material in solution within the context of an international interlaboratory comparison study (CCQM-P216) are described. The mass fraction in solution of a humanized IgG monoclonal antibody (mAb) against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein in the study sample has been value assigned through a combination of liquid chromatography, isotope dilution mass spectrometry (LC-ID-MS) methods and size exclusion chromatography with UV detection (SEC-UV). The former were developed for the quantification of amino acids and proteotypic peptides as surrogate analytes of the mAb while the latter was applied for the determination of the relative monomeric mass fraction. High-resolution mass spectrometry (hrMS) allowed the molecular weight evaluation and ruled out the presence of significant impurities. Method trueness was assessed using a subclass homologous IgG1 material value assigned by amino acid analysis. The assigned mass fraction of monomeric SARS-CoV-2 IgG in solution was 390 ± 16 mg/g. The associated expanded uncertainty originated mainly from acid hydrolysis variability and Trypsin/Lys-C digestion variability and efficiency.

Validation of metrological traceability of the new generation of Abbott Alinity alkaline phosphatase assay

OBJECTIVES

Recently, Abbott Diagnostics marketed a new generation of Alinity enzyme assays, introducing a multiparametric calibrator [Consolidated Chemistry Calibrator (ConCC)] in place of or in addition to factor-based calibrations. For alkaline phosphatase (ALP), both calibration options are offered, i.e., with ConCC (ALP2) and with an experimental calibration factor (ALP2F). Both options are declared traceable to the 2011 IFCC reference measurement procedure (RMP). Before to replace the old generation (ALP1) with the new one, we decided to validate the trueness of ALP2/ALP2F.

METHODS

Three approaches were employed: (a) preliminary comparison on 48 native frozen serum samples with ALP1, of which traceability to RMP was previously successfully verified; (b) examination of three banked serum pools (BSP) with values assigned by RMP; (c) direct comparison with RMP on a set of 24 fresh serum samples. Bias estimation and regression studies were performed, and the standard measurement uncertainty associated with ALP measurements on clinical samples (uresult) was estimated and compared with established analytical performance specifications (APS). ConCC commutability was also assessed.

RESULTS

A positive proportional bias was found with both ALP2 and ALP2F when compared to ALP1 and RMP. This positive bias was confirmed on BSP: in average, +13.1 % for ALP2 and +10.0 % for ALP2F, respectively. uresult were 13.28 % for ALP2 and 10.04 % for ALP2F, both not fulfilling the minimum APS of 4.0 %. Furthermore, ConCC was not commutable with clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results unearth problems in the correct implementation of traceability of Alinity ALP2/ALP2F, with the risk for the new assay to be unfit for clinical purposes.

Recommendations for Setting a Criterion for Assessing Commutability of Secondary Calibrator Certified Reference Materials

A secondary higher-order calibrator is required to be commutable with clinical samples to be suitable for use in the calibration hierarchy of an end-user clinical laboratory in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD-MD). Commutability is a property of a reference material that means results for a reference material and for clinical samples have the same numeric relationship, within specified limits, across the measurement procedures for which the reference material is intended to be used. Procedures for assessing commutability have been described in the literature. This report provides recommendations for establishing a quantitative criterion to assess the commutability of a certified reference material (CRM). The criterion is the maximum allowable noncommutability bias (MANCB) that allows a CRM to be used as a calibrator in a calibration hierarchy for an IVD-MD without exceeding the maximum allowable combined standard uncertainty for a clinical sample result (umaxCS). Consequently, the MANCB is derived as a fraction of the umaxCS for the measurand. The suitability of an MANCB for practical use in a commutability assessment is determined by estimating the number of measurements of clinical samples and CRMs required based on the precision performance and nonselectivity for the measurand of the measurement procedures in the assessment. Guidance is also provided for evaluating indeterminate commutability conclusions and how to report results of a commutability assessment.

The role of clinical glyco(proteo)mics in precision medicine

Glycoproteomics reveals site-specific O- and N-glycosylation that may influence protein properties including binding, activity and half-life. The increasingly mature toolbox with glycomic- and glycoproteomic strategies is applied for the development of biopharmaceuticals and discovery and clinical evaluation of glycobiomarkers in various disease fields. Notwithstanding the contributions of glycoscience in identifying new drug targets, the current report is focused on the biomarker modality that is of interest for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. To this end it is noted that the identification of biomarkers has received more attention than corresponding quantification. Most analytical methods are very efficient in detecting large numbers of analytes but developments to accurately quantify these have so far been limited. In this perspective a parallel is made with earlier proposed tiers for protein quantification using mass spectrometry. Moreover, the foreseen reporting of multimarker readouts is discussed to describe an individual's health or disease state and their role in clinical decision-making. The potential of longitudinal sampling and monitoring of glycomic features for diagnosis and treatment monitoring is emphasized. Finally, different strategies that address quantification of a multimarker panel will be discussed.