Mapping the coverage, availability and uptake of External Quality Assessment programmes across One Health sectors in Asia

Introduction Establishing effective external quality assessment (EQA) programmes is an important element in ensuring the quality of, and building capacity for, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) laboratory surveillance. Objectives To understand the current coverage of, and challenges to participation in, EQAs in National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) across One Health (OH) sectors in Asia. Methods Current EQA coverage was evaluated through desktop review, online surveys and interviews of both EQA participants and providers. EQA coverage was mapped and summarized by laboratory type and ‘readiness’ level and identified challenges evaluated qualitatively. Results Of the 31 identified NRLs [16 Human Health (HH) and 15 Animal/Food Safety laboratories (A/FS)], 14 HH and 7 A/FS laboratories currently participated in international EQA schemes and several participated in two or more different schemes. Seven laboratories were currently not participating in any EQA scheme and two of these (one HH and one A/FS) do not currently perform microbiology; six HH NRLs provided national EQAs. Of the eight surveyed international EQA providers, three were based in Asia and all offered varying programmes in terms of pathogens, frequency and support mechanisms for reporting and follow-up. Only one provider currently served laboratories across all OH sectors. Conclusions The current coverage of EQA programmes for AMR in Asia was heterogeneous across countries but especially across OH sectors. This updated overview of the coverage and challenges associated with participation in, and provision of, EQAs for AMR suggest the benefit and relevance of introducing one comprehensive and high-quality EQA programme across OH sectors in Asia.

Samples spiked with pituitary-derived thyroid-stimulating hormone may disguise the extent of differences between thyroid-stimulating hormone assays

Background A large discordance in the diagnosis and potential management of hypothyroidism using Abbott and Roche thyroid assays has been reported recently. The difference in Abbott and Roche thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) results in these studies was larger than anticipated from the external quality assessment (EQA) reports. Methods Abbott and Roche TSH method means in UK NEQAS for thyroid hormones distributions 430 to 454 were compared against the amount of TSH spiked. A TSH deplete serum pool was spiked with various concentrations of pooled high TSH serum and 3rd WHO International Standard for TSH (WHO-IS). Four serum pools with TSH close to clinical decision limits were spiked with two concentrations of WHO-IS. Results On review of EQA data, median (IQR) Roche: Abbott TSH ratio was lower ( p < 0.001) in 48 pools spiked with TSH (1.11 (1.07–1.16)) compared to 41 pools not spiked (1.29 (1.25–1.31)) and the decrease was proportionate to the contribution of spiked TSH to total TSH in the samples (ρ=−0.908, p < 0.001). In spiking experiments, the relationship of Roche and Abbott TSH was different in TSH deplete pool spiked with WHO-IS (RocheTSH=1.13*AbbottTSH–0.52) and high TSH serum (RocheTSH=1.43*AbbottTSH–0.50), respectively. The Roche: Abbott TSH ratio decreased and the method agreement improved on spiking serum pools with WHO-IS. Conclusion Abbott and Roche TSH assays are not in harmony in human serum samples but the agreement was better in samples spiked with WHO-IS which contains pituitary-derived TSH. Use of pituitary-derived TSH spiked samples, such as provided by EQA schemes, may mask clinically significant between-assay differences.

Harmonization status of procalcitonin measurements: what do comparison studies and EQA schemes tell us?

Sepsis represents a global health priority because of its high mortality and morbidity. The key to improving prognosis remains an early diagnosis to initiate appropriate antibiotic treatment. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a recognized biomarker for the early indication of bacterial infections and a valuable tool to guide and individualize antibiotic treatment. To meet the increasing demand for PCT testing, numerous PCT immunoassays have been developed and commercialized, but results have been questioned. Many comparison studies have been carried out to evaluate analytical performance and comparability of results provided by the different commercially available immunoassays for PCT, but results are conflicting. External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS) for PCT constitute another way to evaluate results comparability. However, when making this comparison, it must be taken into account that the variety of EQA materials consist of different matrices, the commutability of which has not yet been investigated. The present study gathers results from all published comparison studies and results from 137 EQAS surveys to describe the current state-of-the-art harmonization of PCT results. Comparison studies globally highlight a significant variability of measurement results that nonetheless seem to have a moderate impact on medical decision-making. For their part, EQAS for PCT provides highly discrepant estimates of the interlaboratory CV. Due to differences in commutability of the EQA materials, the results from different peer groups could not be compared. To improve the informative value of the EQA data, the existing limitations such as non-harmonized conditions and suboptimal and/or unknown commutability of the EQA materials have to be overcome. The study highlights the need for commutable reference materials that could be used to properly evaluate result comparability and possibly standardize calibration, if necessary. Such an initiative would further improve the safe use of PCT in clinical routine.

Frequency of Participation to External Quality Assessment Programs Focused on Rare Diseases: Belgian Guidelines for Human Genetics Centers. (Preprint)

BACKGROUND The participation to quality controls, also called External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes, is required for the ISO15189 accreditation of the medical centers of human genetics. However, directives on the minimal frequency of participation to genetic quality controls schemes are lacking or too heterogeneous, with a possible impact on healthcare quality. OBJECTIVE The aim of this project is to develop Belgian guidelines on the frequency of participation to quality controls for genetic testing in the context of rare diseases. METHODS A group of experts has analyzed 90 EQA schemes offered by accredited providers and focused on analyses used for the diagnosis of rare diseases. On that basis, the experts developed practical recommendations about the minimal frequencies of participation of the medical centers of human genetics to quality controls and how to deal with poor performances and change management. These guidelines were submitted to the Belgian Accreditation Body and then reviewed and approved by the Belgian College of Human Genetics and Rare Diseases and by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance. RESULTS The guidelines offer a decisional algorithm for the minimal frequency of participation to human genetics EQA schemes. This algorithm has been developed taking into account the scopes of the EQA schemes, the levels of experience and the annual volumes of the center of human genetics in the performance of the tests considered. They include 3 key principles : (i) the recommended annual assessment of all genetic techniques and technological platforms, if possible through EQAs covering the technique, genotyping and clinical interpretation, (ii) the triennial assessment of the genotyping and interpretation of specific germline mutations and pharmacogenomics analyses, (iii) the documentation of actions undertaken in the case of poor performances and the participation to a quality control the following year. The use of a Bayesian statistical model has been proposed to help the centers of human genetics to determine the theoretical number of tests that should be annually performed in order to achieve a certain threshold of performance (e.g. maximal error rate of 1%). Besides, the guidelines insist on the role and responsibility of the national public health authorities in the follow-up of the quality of analyses performed by the medical centers of human genetics, and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the rationalization of the frequency of participation to these quality controls. CONCLUSIONS These guidelines have been developed based on the analysis of a large panel of EQA schemes and data collected from the Belgian Medical Centers of Human Genetics. They are totally applicable to other countries and will facilitate and improve the quality management and financing systems of the medical centers of human genetics. CLINICALTRIAL not applicable

Evaluation of a worldwide EQA scheme for complex clonality analysis of clinical lymphoproliferative cases demonstrates a learning effect

Clonality analysis of immunoglobulin (IG) or T-cell receptor (TR) gene rearrangements is routine practice to assist diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. Participation in external quality assessment (EQA) aids laboratories in identifying systematic shortcomings. The aim of this study was to evaluate laboratories’ improvement in IG/TR analysis and interpretation during five EQA rounds between 2014 and 2018. Each year, participants received a total of five cases for IG and five cases for TR testing. Paper-based cases were included for analysis of the final molecular conclusion that should be interpreted based on the integration of the individual PCR results. Wet cases were distributed for analysis of their routine protocol as well as evaluation of the final molecular conclusion. In total, 94.9% (506/533) of wet tests and 97.9% (829/847) of paper tests were correctly analyzed for IG, and 96.8% (507/524) wet tests and 93.2% (765/821) paper tests were correctly analyzed for TR. Analysis scores significantly improved when laboratories participated to more EQA rounds (p=0.001). Overall performance was significantly lower (p=0.008) for non-EuroClonality laboratories (95% for IG and 93% for TR) compared to EuroClonality laboratories (99% for IG and 97% for TR). The difference was not related to the EQA scheme year, anatomic origin of the sample, or final clinical diagnosis. This evaluation showed that repeated EQA participation helps to reduce performance differences between laboratories (EuroClonality versus non-EuroClonality) and between sample types (paper versus wet). The difficulties in interpreting oligoclonal cases highlighted the need for continued education by meetings and EQA schemes.

Feasibility for aggregation of commutable external quality assessment results to evaluate metrological traceability and agreement among results

ObjectivesExternal quality assessment (EQA) with commutable samples is used for assessing agreement of results for patients’ samples. We investigated the feasibility to aggregate results from four different EQA schemes to determine the bias between different measurement procedures and a reference target value.MethodsWe aggregated EQA results for creatinine from programs that used commutable EQA material by calculating the relative difference between individual participant results and the reference target value for each sample. The means and standard errors of the means were calculated for the relative differences. Results were partitioned by methods, manufacturers and instrument platforms to evaluate the biases for the measurement procedures.ResultsData aggregated for enzymatic methods had biases that varied from −8.2 to 3.8% among seven instrument platforms for creatinine at normal concentrations (61–85 μmol/L). EQA schemes differed in the evidence provided about the commutability of their samples, and in the amount of detail collected from participants regarding the measurement procedures which limited the ability to sub-divide aggregated data by instrument platforms and models.ConclusionsEQA data could be aggregated from four different programs using different commutable samples to determine bias among different measurement procedures. Criteria for commutability for EQA samples as well as standardization of reporting the measurement methods, reagents, instrument platforms and models used by participants are needed to improve the ability to aggregate the results for optimal assessment of performance of measurement procedures. Aggregating data from a larger number of EQA schemes is feasible to assess trueness on a global scale.

PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in non-small-cell lung cancer: unraveling differences in staining concordance and interpretation

Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is accepted as a predictive biomarker for the selection of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated the staining quality and estimation of the tumor proportion score (TPS) in non-small-cell lung cancer during two external quality assessment (EQA) schemes by the European Society of Pathology. Participants received two tissue micro-arrays with three (2017) and four (2018) cases for PD-L1 IHC and a positive tonsil control, for staining by their routine protocol. After the participants returned stained slides to the EQA coordination center, three pathologists assessed each slide and awarded an expert staining score from 1 to 5 points based on the staining concordance. Expert scores significantly (p < 0.01) improved between EQA schemes from 3.8 (n = 67) to 4.3 (n = 74) on 5 points. Participants used 32 different protocols: the majority applied the 22C3 (56.7%) (Dako), SP263 (19.1%) (Ventana), and E1L3N (Cell Signaling) (7.1%) clones. Staining artifacts consisted mainly of very weak or weak antigen demonstration (63.0%) or excessive background staining (19.8%). Participants using CE-IVD kits reached a higher score compared with those using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) (p < 0.05), mainly attributed to a better concordance of SP263. The TPS was under- and over-estimated in 20/423 (4.7%) and 24/423 (5.7%) cases, respectively, correlating to a lower expert score. Additional research is needed on the concordance of less common protocols, and on reasons for lower LDT concordance. Laboratories should carefully validate all test methods and regularly verify their performance. EQA participation should focus on both staining concordance and interpretation of PD-L1 IHC.

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes assess the performance of predictive biomarker testing in lung and colorectal cancer and have previously demonstrated variable error rates. No information is currently available on the underlying causes of incorrect EQA results in the laboratories. Participants in EQA schemes by the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted to complete a survey if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases. Of the 791 surveys that were sent, 325 were completed including data from 185 unique laboratories on 514 incorrectly analyzed or failed cases. For the digital cases and immunohistochemistry, the majority of errors were interpretation-related. For fluorescence in situ hybridization, problems with the EQA materials were reported frequently. For variant analysis, the causes were mainly methodological for lung cancer but variable for colorectal cancer. Post-analytical (clerical and interpretation) errors were more likely detected after release of the EQA results compared to pre-analytical and analytical issues. Accredited laboratories encountered fewer reagent problems and more often responded to the survey. A recent change in test methodology resulted in method-related problems. Testing more samples annually introduced personnel errors and lead to a lower performance in future schemes. Participation to quality improvement projects is important to reduce deviating test results in laboratories, as the different error causes differently affect the test performance. EQA providers could benefit from requesting root cause analyses behind errors to offer even more tailored feedback, subschemes, and cases.

Lp(A): When and how to measure it

Lipoprotein(a) has long been regarded as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, its routine use in clinical practice has been hampered by difficulties inherent in the measurement of this complex lipoprotein. The major challenges relate to its size heterogeneity and related issues including (1) use of appropriate calibrators (2) standardization of calibration protocols (3) traceability and (4) reporting units. In the UK, results from the current EQA schemes for lipoprotein(a) suggest that there is considerable work required to standardize lipoprotein(a) measurement. This is becoming increasingly pertinent with the increasing recognition of lipoprotein(a) as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in international guidelines and the emergence of novel antisense therapies to effectively reduce lipoprotein(a). This article raises awareness of the importance of measurement of lipoprotein(a) for the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk and gives guidance to clinical laboratories regarding choice of appropriate assays.

Harmonising EQA schemes the next frontier: challenging the status quo

There is a focus on standardisation and harmonisation of laboratory results to reduce the risk of misinterpretation of patient results assayed in different laboratories. External quality assessment (EQA) is critical to assess the need for harmonisation and to monitor the success of procedures to achieve harmonisation. However, EQA providers are being stretched to meet the needs of their participants with proven commutable material with reference method targets, a range of clinically significant levels of the materials, detailed and customised data analysis, and educational support. The path ahead for harmonisation of EQA schemes will require leadership from an organisation that has the support and confidence of EQA providers, like the European Organisation for External Qualily Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine.