Analytical performance specifications – moving from models to practical recommendations
Sverre Sandberg,Tomas Zima,Mauro Panteghini
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0661
2024-06-07
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Abstract:The concept of quality in laboratory medicine has many facets, but it is certainly difficult to discuss unless specifications for quality are set. Prior to the 5th Symposium Cutting Edge of Laboratory Medicine in Europe (CELME) held in Prague (October 2023), which is dealt with in this special issue of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine , three other conferences on setting analytical performance specifications (APS) in laboratory medicine were convened: the Aspen Conference on analytical goals in clinical chemistry in 1976 [1], the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)-IFCC conference held in Stockholm in 1999 [2], and the 1st EFLM Strategic Conference held in Milan in November 2014 [3]. The two last conferences also resulted in consensus documents [4, 5]. In the 2014 EFLM Strategic Conference, models to set APS were discussed and agreed [5]. A summary of the outcomes from that conference is presented in this issue along with a discussion of the anticipated role and responsibilities of the various stakeholders [6]. Particularly, pressure from the laboratory professionals are considered crucial for contributing a quantum leap forward in the way of practicality of Milan consensus about APS, and an APS list supported by the professional bodies in the field should be welcomed for helping to identify the minority of tests that require an actual improvement [6]. The main intention with the 2023 CELME conference was to discuss each of the three models from the Milan conference and to see how the related concepts were developed since 2014. The conference, which title was "Analytical performance specifications: Moving from models to practical recommendations", sought to see if it was possible to offer approaches on how to make the applications of the models more concrete and practical. Participants in principle agreed that the three Milan models were good and covered the different alternatives to set APS: it was therefore deemed unnecessary to write a new "consensus document". Following the conference's introduction focusing on the background and expectation for the meeting, the conference was divided into three sessions about: (i) The role of APS in providing a suitable laboratory contribution to patient care; (ii) Further development and examples in the use of the three Milan models; and (iii) APS in different applications. The first important question to be addressed was: "what role – if any – does APS play in laboratory medicine, and thereby for patient outcomes, and in which scenarios do we need it". Important is knowledge about what the intended use is, who are the APS users as well as why, when, and where the in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD-MD) will be used. Ensuring harmonized medical laboratory results is essential for patient care. In his presentation, Miller underlined the importance to establish a metrological traceability chain from the higher-order references to the result obtained on clinical samples [7]. In doing this, the combined measurement uncertainty (MU) for a patient result, derived from each measurement step across the entire calibration hierarchy, must fulfil an APS for the maximum allowable measurement uncertainty (MAU), defined using one of the three models described in the Milan consensus document. Miller observed that one of the major challenges in determining if MAU is fulfilled is correctly determining the contribution of the random MU (u Rw ) from an IVD-MD operating within an individual laboratory. Many of the current indications for estimating u Rw from internal quality control (IQC) data do not use a sufficiently representative time interval to capture all relevant sources of variability in measurement results. Consequently, underestimation of u Rw is possible and may compromise assessment of how well current IVD-MDs and their supporting calibration hierarchies meet the clinical needs [8]. Manufacturers need APS to determine the quality level of their IVD-MDs. They may differentiate between "required" APS, necessary to make the product viable, and "aspirational" APS, which they would like to meet if IVD-MDs need improvement. They would like, as many others at the CELME meeting, to have one agreed list where APS for all the different Milan models are presented. On the other hand, it would be vital to obtain a more exhaustive information on which APS model, if any, IVD manufacturers are applying for MU of calibrator assigned values in the validation of the IVD-MDs. A "reality check" on the significance of APS in the real-life context of laboratory work was presented by Ceriotti, based on a questionnaire circulated in Italy [9]. It was interesting to know that only 64 % of those familiar with the term APS used them in the daily practice. The state-of-the-art performance was used by 48 % of the surveyed participants to set APS, followed by the biological v -Abstract Truncated-
medical laboratory technology