Cotten, Steven W.

Abstract Background Direct measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is widely used and recommended by professional society guidelines despite its potential limitations in patients with hypertriglyceridemia and low LDL-C. This study evaluated the performance of 3 direct LDL-C (LDL-CD) assays, 2 modern LDL-C calculation methods [LDL-C Martin (LDL-CM), LDL-C modified Sampson (LDL-CS)] and the conventional Friedewald (LDL-CF) method against the reference method, beta-quantification (LDL-CBQ). Methods A total of 181 remnant sera from patients with standard lipid panel orders or from patients with LDL-CBQ orders with triglycerides (TG) ≥ 400 mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L), or with TG ≥ 150 mg/dL (1.69 mmol/L) and LDL-C < 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) were included. LDL-CD and lipid panel data were gathered from Abbott Alinity, Roche Cobas, and Siemens Atellica platforms. Results LDL-CD among the 3 platforms showed a median CV of 11.2%. In patients with TG <400 mg/dL, LDL-CM and LDL-CS demonstrated less bias and less misclassification at the clinical decision LDL-C levels than LDL-CF or LDL-CD. In the 400 to 800 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) TG group, LDL-CS was superior to LDL-CD or LDL-CM in accuracy. When TG is ≥ 800 mg/dL, LDL-CD (Roche) showed substantial bias from LDL-CBQ while LDL-CS (Roche) showed smaller but significant bias. Conclusions In summary, LDL-CD or LDL-CF showed little advantage over the 2 modern LDL-C calculation methods. LDL-CS showed the best overall correlation with LDL-CBQ and therefore is recommended to replace LDL-CF and potentially LDL-CD when making clinical decisions in patients with low LDL-C and hypertriglyceridemia.

Abstract Background Body fluid testing in the clinical chemistry laboratory is a cornerstone in the diagnostic workup of pathological effusions. Laboratorians may not be aware of the preanalytical workflows used in the collection of body fluids though the value is evident whenever processes change or issues arise. The analytical validation requirements can vary depending on the regulations dictated by the laboratories’ jurisdiction and accreditor requirements. Much of analytical validation hinges on how useful testing is to clinical care. Usefulness of testing varies with how well established and incorporated the tests and interpretation are in practice guidelines. Content Body fluid collections are depicted and described so clinical laboratorians have a basic appreciation of what specimens are submitted to the laboratory for testing. A review of validation requirements by major laboratory accreditation entities is presented. A review of the usefulness and proposed decision limits for common body fluid chemistry analytes is presented. Body fluid tests that show promise and those that are losing (or lost long ago) value are also reviewed. Summary The total testing process from collection to result interpretation can be complicated and easily overlooked by the clinical laboratory. This review aims to improve the understanding and awareness of collections, validation, result interpretation, and provide an update on recent trends.

Abstract Objectives Interpretation of body fluid (BF) results is based on published studies and clinical guidelines. The aim of this study is to determine whether the assays from five common commercial vendors produce similar results in BFs for 12 analytes in a BF cohort. Methods BFs (n = 25) and serum (n = 5) were analyzed on five instruments (Roche cobas c501, Ortho 5600, Beckman AU5800 and DXI800, Siemens Vista 1500, and Abbott Architect c8000) to measure albumin, amylase, total bilirubin, cholesterol, creatinine, glucose, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), lipase, total protein, triglycerides, urea nitrogen, and carcinoembryonic antigen. Deming regression and Bland-Altman analysis were used for method comparison to Roche. Results Results were significantly different from Roche for LDH and lipase on Ortho and lipase on Siemens but similar for both BFs and serum. BF differences were larger than serum differences when measuring creatinine, glucose, and urea nitrogen on Ortho and glucose on Siemens. Conclusions Five instruments used to perform BF testing produce results that are not significantly different except for lipase and LDH measurements. Bias of similar magnitude observed in both BF and serum should not affect interpretation. Further investigations into Ortho and Siemens measuring glucose and Ortho measuring creatinine and urea nitrogen are warranted.