Luu, Hung S

Abstract Background The first international clinical standards of care for the gender-diverse population were formulated in the late 1970s. In the last 15 years, multiple subspecialty societies within the United States have developed clinical care guidelines for those with gender dysphoria, including gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and surgical treatments. To date, there are no pathology- and laboratory medicine–specific recommendations in the United States for the gender-diverse population. Content This document outlines pathology- and laboratory medicine–specific recommendations for providing optimal care to the gender-diverse population, with a predominant focus on the adult population. The scope of this document focuses on the following 5 topics: (a) reference intervals and interpretation of laboratory tests impacted by use of GAHT (testosterone for transgender men; estradiol with or without antiandrogens for transgender women), focusing on those stably on GAHT for 6 months or longer; (b) transfusion medicine considerations for the gender-diverse patient population, (c) consideration of gender diversity in autopsy and death investigation, (d) interpretation of histology from tissues that are impacted by GAHT and surgical procedures; and (e) pathology and laboratory medicine informatics challenges and opportunities. Summary A relatively small group of laboratory tests is significantly impacted by GAHT. The histology of some tissues shows changes attributable to GAHT or to nonhormonal medical procedures. Autopsy and transfusion medicine practices for the gender-diverse population currently lack standardization, although this is evolving. The landscape of pathology informatics related to gender diversity is complicated by varying electronic health record and laboratory informatics systems functionality.

Context.— The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for SARS-CoV-2 assays encompassed both in vitro diagnostic and laboratory-developed tests. Related testing data and documents from EUAs were published on the FDA website as PDF files, constituting a rich data resource. Objective.— To highlight the value of structured descriptive and validation data and provide recommendations on improving the quality, accessibility, and shareability of the FDA’s digital resources. Design.— SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics EUAs and related files were acquired from the FDA, and data were extracted through an iterative manual or automated process with quality assurance in accordance with a set of data entry definitions to generate a data product (ie, data analysis and presentation of data into tables, graphs, and reports, optionally including different data sets) that could be disseminated. Results.— Four challenges limited the usability of FDA EUA data, including (1) distinguishing EUA tests owing to similar names or inconsistent naming conventions; (2) document location and tracking owing to inconsistent EUA document identifiers, resource locators, and versioning; (3) data location and retrieval owing to heterogeneous structure and data formatting within EUA documentation; and (4) maintenance of existing data owing to lack of clear and traceable communication around EUA amendments. Conclusions.— Converging efforts from disparate groups to extract and synthesize FDA test data reveal an unaddressed need for better organization and communication. Existing FDA data reporting systems must be improved and adapted for the demands of the connected data science era.

Context.— Biomedical terminologies such as Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC) were developed to enable interoperability of health care data between disparate health information systems to improve patient outcomes, public health, and research activities. Objective.— To ascertain the utilization rate and accuracy of LOINC terminology mapping to 10 commonly ordered tests by participants of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Proficiency Testing program. Design.— Questionnaires were sent to 1916 US and Canadian laboratories participating in the 2018 CAP coagulation (CGL) and/or cardiac markers (CRT) surveys requesting information on practice setting, instrument(s) and test method(s), and LOINC code selection and usage in the laboratory and electronic health records. Results.— Ninety of 1916 CGL and/or CRT participants (4.7%) responded to the questionnaire. Of the 275 LOINC codes reported, 54 (19.6%) were incorrect: 2 codes (5934-2 and 12345-1) (0.7%) did not exist in the LOINC database and the highest error rates were observed in the property (27 of 275, 9.8%), system (27 of 275, 9.8%), and component (22 of 275, 8.0%) LOINC axes. Errors in LOINC code selection included selection of the incorrect component (eg, activated clotting time instead of activated partial thromboplastin time); selection of panels that can never be used to obtain an individual analyte (eg, prothrombin time panel instead of international normalized ratio); and selection of an incorrect specimen type. Conclusions.— These findings of real-world LOINC code implementation across a spectrum of laboratory settings should raise concern about the reliability and utility of using LOINC for clinical research or to aggregate data.