Galior, Kornelia

Abstract Background Allowable total error (ATE) is a quality concept that defines acceptable analytical performance for a clinical laboratory assay. ATE will vary in terms of the amount of error permissible not only between assays but also based on the test setting and the assay’s clinical use. In the clinical laboratory, ATE limits are routinely applied, for example, when evaluating new analytical methodology or equipment for patient testing, troubleshooting unacceptable quality control, or in evaluating instrument comparability. Content Currently, there are no universally applicable standards for defining the maximum magnitude of allowable error. However, there are several resources available for users to consider when setting ATE limits. Examples include clinical outcomes studies, biological variation of the measurand, state-of-the-art, professional organizations, and requirements set by regulatory agencies and proficiency testing/external quality assessment scheme organizers. Each of these approaches varies in terms of the resulting magnitude of allowable error for the same assay. This review describes these resources in more detail and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Summary ATE users should be aware of different resources and their limitations before defining acceptance criteria for an assay in their clinical laboratory.

Abstract Introduction Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) is used for the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes. Methods for measuring HbA1C are classified on the basis of charge differences (cation exchange chromatography) or structural differences (boronate affinity chromatography). Some cation exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyzers may be prone to interferences from hemoglobin variants. Historically, our lab used two methods to report HbA1C results: cation exchange HPLC (VariantII) with reflex to boronate affinity HPLC (Ultra2) methods. A new analyzer (BioRad D-100) with improved interference detection and thresholds for interference was evaluated. The objectives of this study were (1) assess the comparability of HbA1c results between D-100, VariantII, and Ultra2; (2) evaluate the need for maintaining a reflex method; and (3) calculate cancellation rates before and after implementing D-100. Methods HbA1c was measured by cation exchange methods using VariantII Turbolink, D-100 (BioRad), and boronate affinity using Ultra2Affinity (Trinity Biotech) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations with the following analytical measuring ranges (AMRs), 4.0% to 17.6%, 4.0% to 18.0%, and 4.0% to 17.6%, respectively. D-100 was compared to VariantII (n = 26) and Ultra2 (n = 31) using residual patient samples from provider-ordered HbA1c having no chromatography flags and with the following chromatography flags on VariantII (n = 113): variant window (n = 41), HbA1c <4.0% (n = 24), HbA1a + HbA1b >5% (n = 19), HbF >5% (n = 9), P3 >10% (n = 6), HbA1c >17.6% (n = 4), unknown peak (n = 3), labile 5% to 15% (n = 3), labile >15% (n = 3), and HbS >60% (n = 1). The cancelation rates were calculated at baseline (January 1-31, 2018) and postimplementation of D-100 (September 20, 2018, to January 22, 2019). Results HbA1c results from D-100 were within ±0.3 or 5% with the following frequencies: Ultra2 in 96.2% (25/26) with VariantII in 96.8% (30/31) using samples with no chromatography flags. A total of 113 samples with abnormal VariantII flags were tested using D-100 with 82% (n = 92) not exceeding interference limits for result reporting. These D-100 results were within ±0.3 or 5% of Ultra2 results with the following frequencies: 38.5% (10/26) of samples below (n = 23) or above (n = 3) the AMR, 85.3% (29/34) of results with Hb variant flags, 68.0% (17/25) with unknown/minor peaks, and 71.4% (5/7) with HbF <15%. The clinical concordance was also assessed according to the following decision limits: normal <5.6%, prediabetic = 5.7% to 6.4%, and diabetic >6.5%. Results were concordant in 88% with variant peaks (12/13 w/HbA1c <5.6%, 8/11 w/HbA1c = 5.7%-6.4%, 10/10 w/HbA1c >6.5%), 84% with minor peaks (5/6 w/HbA1c <5.6%, 0/2 w/HbA1c = 5.7%-6.4%, 16/17 w/HbA1c >6.5%), and 86% with HbF (3/3 w/HbA1c <5.6%, 2/3 w/HbA1c = 5.7%-6.4%, 1/1 w/HbA1c >6.5%). Results above/below AMR had 100% concordance (>16.0% or <4.4%). The frequency of VariantII rule violation was 2.1% in January 2018, with 53 of 117 having results confirmed as <4.0% or >16.0% by Ultra2, 2 of 117 reported by Ultra2, and 62 being cancelled due to HbF >15% (n = 23) or variant Hb >60% (n = 39). The frequency of rule violation using only D-100 since implementation was 2.2%. Conclusion Implementation of D-100 has removed the need for boronate affinity reflex testing and maintained similar cancellation rates.

Over the past two decades, vitamin D level measurements have become some of the most frequently ordered tests in the laboratory. This increase is due to a growing awareness of widespread vitamin D deficiency and scientific data suggesting the beneficial effects of vitamin D in various diseases. A literature search was carried out in PubMed for cases reporting vitamin D intoxication and overdose. Thirteen articles were included in this review. Intoxication was severe in the reported cases. Patients presented with serum vitamin D concentrations ranging between 150 and 1220 ng/mL and serum calcium concentrations between 11.1 and 23.1 mg/dL. Most of the reported patients showed symptoms of vitamin D toxicity such as vomiting, dehydration, pain, and loss of appetite. The underlying causes included manufacturing errors, overdosing by patients or prescribers, and combinations of these factors. Our literature search highlights the fact that even though vitamin D intoxication is rare, it does occur and therefore patients and prescribers should be more cognizant of the potential dangers of vitamin D overdose.