Donato, Leslie

Abstract Background Point-of-care testing (POCT) has expanded rapidly across healthcare systems, increasing both program scale and operational complexity. However, quantitative benchmarking data describing how POCT programs are structured and supported across institutions remain limited. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to characterize POCT program support, including program scope, staffing, operational practices, governance, and challenges. The survey was distributed electronically through professional networks, and 93 institutional responses were analyzed. Descriptive analyses were performed, and derived metrics, including sites per point-of-care testing coordinator (POCC), were used to evaluate the relationship between program scale and staffing. Results POCT programs demonstrated substantial variability in scale, with wide ranges in the number of testing sites and operator populations. Adoption spanned multiple test categories, and many institutions reported use of multiple platforms for the same assays. Training, competency assessment, and quality management activities were primarily supported by laboratory staff and POCCs, with documentation frequently partially electronic. Median POCC staffing increased with program size; however, sites per POCC also increased significantly across program scale tiers (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.001). Governance structures and operational responsibilities varied across institutions, and common challenges included staffing limitations, training and compliance burden, multisite coordination, and IT/connectivity constraints. Conclusions POCT programs are expanding in scale and complexity, but workforce capacity and governance structures have not scaled proportionally. This mismatch creates a cumulative and multiplicative operational burden. These findings provide benchmarking data to inform scalable staffing models, governance strategies, and infrastructure development for sustainable POCT program management.

Abstract Background Dipeptidyl peptidase 3 (DPP3) is a peptidase released from dying cells. It cleaves proteins in the renin–angiotensin pathway, which can result in hemodynamic instability. At elevated concentrations DPP3 is associated with worse outcomes, particularly in patients with shock. Herein we describe the assay performance of a DPP3 assay (4TEEN4 Pharmaceuticals GmbH) in human plasma. Methods DPP3 concentration was measured using the DPP3 immunoluminometric assay (4TEEN4 Pharmaceuticals GmbH) and the signal was read using a luminometer (Berthold Centro LB963). Analytical performance was established for precision, linearity, accuracy, detection limit, analytical specificity, reference interval, kit lot-to-lot comparison, specimen type, and sample stability. Results Limit of detection was verified at 1.6 ng/mL in EDTA plasma with a coefficient of variation (CV) of <10%. Precision studies revealed a CV ≤ 6% at 28.5 ng/mL and 59.4 ng/mL and comparability with a manufacturer performed assay was demonstrated between 7.7 and 195.2 ng/mL. An upper 97.5% limit of 22 ng/mL without age or sex associations was verified in healthy donors. The assay was not susceptible to interference from lipemia or bilirubin. However, measured DPP3 concentrations increased linearly with increasing hemolysis. DPP3 concentrations are stable in EDTA plasma for up to 24 h and at least 11 months when stored ambient or at −80°C, respectively. Conclusions DPP3 can be measured precisely in EDTA plasma using the immunoluminometric DPP3 assay. Given the potential clinical use of DPP3 in critical care patients, caution should be taken to avoid inducing pre-analytical hemolysis during sample collection.

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 Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is directly associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. Subfractionation of LDL enables differentiation between large-buoyant LDL (>20.5 nm) and small-dense LDL (≤20.5 nm). Small-dense LDL reportedly increases CAD risk, as do LDL-C and LDL particle (LDL-P) concentrations. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) reports LDL-C, LDL-P, and LDL size (LDL-s). We investigated associations between these outputs and their agreement on CAD risk information. Methods Associations between LDL-P, LDL-C, and LDL-s measured by NMR were evaluated in serum from clinically ordered samples (n = 26 710), and a subset of patients with CAD evaluation from coronary angiography (n = 356). Correlations were determined using Spearman ρ, and clinical classifications were compared using the following thresholds for increased risk: LDL-C > 160 mg/dL, LDL-P > 1600 nmol/L, and LDL-S < 20.5 nm. Results The large laboratory NMR data set showed LDL-C was highly correlated with LDL-P (ρ = 0.87), and moderately with LDL-s (ρ = 0.51). Correlation between LDL-P and LDL-s was weakest (ρ = 0.21). When comparing pairwise high- and low-risk laboratory values, concordant values were observed in 99.8%, 43%, and 25% of cases for LDL-P/LDL-C, LDL-s/LDL-P, and LDL-C/LDL-s, respectively. In patients with angiography and NMR results, CAD was diagnosed in 40% (6/15) of patients with concordant high-risk LDL-C and small-dense LDL-s in the smaller patient cohort, but only 19% (6/31) of CAD-positive patients with high-risk LDL-C had small-dense LDL-s. Conclusions LDL-s and LDL-C are frequently discordant at established LDL-C risk cutoffs. CAD diagnosis was found in similar numbers regardless of LDL-s phenotype.

Abstract Background β-Quantification (BQ) is the reference method for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) determination. It is not widely available, making it challenging for laboratories to assess the accuracy of LDL-C methods. Our goal was to develop an indirect graphical approach for comparing LDL-C test results to the BQ reference method. Methods BQ results from Mayo Medical Laboratories (n = 39 969) and the National Institutes of Health (n = 17 825) were used to investigate the interrelationships between lipid panel tests. A plot of LDL-C/non high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (nonHDL-C) vs (triglyceride (TG)/nonHDL-C)0.5 (lipid ratio plot) resulted in a negative linear regression line (y = −34.2x + 115). Based on simulation analysis, the minimum sample size for calculating its slope and intercept with a coefficient of variation of about 7.5% was 80. Results The regression lines for the lipid ratio plot of LDL-C calculated by the Sampson–NIH (y = −37.6x + 118) and enhanced Sampson–NIH (y = −33.1x + 116) equations closely overlapped with the BQ method. In contrast, the Martin–Hopkins equation showed a positive bias with an increasing TG/nonHDL-C ratio and exceeded the recommended bias limit of 4% on hypertriglyceridemic samples (y = −25.5x + 107). The Friedewald equation showed an even larger negative bias with hypertriglyceridemia (y = −47.5x + 126). Lipid ratio plots of the Roche direct assay revealed a fixed positive bias of approximately 4% (y = −33.9x + 120), whereas a much larger proportional positive bias was observed with increasing triglycerides for the Beckman direct assay (y = −14.6x + 97.8). Conclusions The lipid ratio plot is a simple graphical approach that can be readily performed by clinical laboratories for investigating the accuracy of LDL-C assays by calculation methods or direct assays.

Abstract Background Cardiovascular guidelines have long recommended low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary target for lipid-lowering therapy. Recent guidelines have emphasized the importance of achieving low LDL-C levels; hence, the accurate measurement of low LDL-C is increasingly clinically relevant. Methods Using lipid panel test results from the Mayo Clinic (n = 24 590) and the FOURIER clinical trial of evolocumab (n = 9605), the following modified Sampson equation was developed by least-squares regression to match LDL-C (mg/dL) by the β-quantification reference method, by combining terms into non High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (nonHDLC = Total Cholesterol – High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol) and forcing the coefficient to be one: Results The modified Sampson equation demonstrated significant improvement in its concordance to the reference method compared to other equations (the Lin Concordance Correlation Coefficient 0.992, P < 0.001). By overall kappa analysis, it showed the best agreement to the reference method at the 55 mg/dL cutpoint (1.4 mmol/L, 0.98 [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 0.96, Martin–Hopkins: 0.96, Friedewald: 0.94) and the 70 mg/dL cutpoint (1.8 mmol/L, 0.97 [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 0.94, Martin–Hopkins: 0.95, Friedewald: 0.92). The false classification rate of the modified Sampson equation was also significantly lower compared to the other equations at 55 mg/dL (15%, [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 29%, Martin–Hopkins: 28%, Friedewald: 37%) and 70 mg/dL (18%, [P < 0.001]; Sampson–NIH: 30%, Martin–Hopkins: 28.%, Friedewald: 34%). The new equation increases the percentage of correctly classified patients with low LDL-C by approximately 10% to 20% over the other equations based on its net reclassification index. Conclusions The modified Sampson equation shows improved accuracy compared to other equations for low LDL-C. It more accurately identifies high-risk patients, who are not at their LDL-C goals and could benefit from more intensive lipid-lowering therapy.

Background Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated. Methods and Results In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL. Conclusions Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.