Is sweat conductivity still a relevant screening test for cystic fibrosis? Participation over 10 years
Natasha Robbins,R. John Massie,Avis McWhinney,Natasha Heather,Lawrence Greed,Peter Graham,Samantha Shepherd,Trisha Andersen,Ronda F. Greaves
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0909
2024-08-19
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Abstract:To the Editor, Sweat conductivity testing measures sodium–chloride equivalents and has been used for many years as a simplified test, to exclude cystic fibrosis (CF) in patients with clinical features of CF. Patients should be older than 6 months, that is, sweat conductivity should not be used for infants identified by newborn screening. Sweat conductivity has the advantage of being easily measured at the point of care, saving the patient and their family the need to travel to a CF centre. However, while sweat conductivity is a simplified analytical test, the collection process is identical to the sweat chloride test and requires a high level of attention to detail which is not necessarily conducive to point of care testing. Previously, the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (AACB) – Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) Inborn Errors Advisory Committee concluded that "variations in sweat conductivity testing and reporting reflect many of the same issues that were revealed in sweat chloride test audits, and have the potential to lead to uncertainty about the result and the proper action in response to the result" [1]. A significant variable, and potential for error, in the sweat test, lies in the pre-analytical phase, that is sweat collection [2]. Sweat collection requires a series of steps, starting with cleaning of the skin of the forearm, placing a pilocarpine gel (or soaked pad) attached to electrodes on the arm, stimulation at 2.5–4 mA for 5 min, removal of the device and placement of the sweat collector on the arm for up to 30 min [3, 4]. At the end of this time the sweat sample is removed, and the minimum volume (or weight) checked. The minimum sweat volume for analysis is based on the rate of sweat secretion greater than one g/m 2 /min which equates to 18 μL of sweat collected in 30 min [3, 4]. Sweat conductivity, can be analysed at the point of collection and patients with sweat conductivity results >50 mmol/L then require a follow-up sweat chloride collection at a CF centre [4]. [1] To ensure ongoing competency for this pre-analytical process, staff members are required to perform at least ten collections per year. In addition, to meet International Standards Organization (ISO) 15189:2022 requirements sites performing sweat conductivity should be enrolled in an external quality assurance program [5]. The RCPAQAP has offered a Sweat Testing program since 2000 to support the performance of sweat chloride and sweat conductivity measurement. Laboratories across Australia, New Zealand and internationally participate. Here we report on the decrease in participation in the sweat conductivity RCPAQAP program over the last decade. Participation data for sweat chloride and sweat conductivity were extracted from RCPAQAP software dating back to 2013 and analysed in Excel. Briefly, the Sweat Testing program consists of 24 samples containing an anhydrous sodium chloride supplement provided annually across six linearly related levels. The medians of these levels ranged from 10–99 mmol/L and have been consistent over the last decade of the program. Participants in the program return results for chloride concentration as well as sweat conductivity. The program is also designed to allow participants to return an interpretation of the results. The interpretations options for conductivity were "Normal" or "Refer", which aligned with the current guideline recommendation that sweat conductivity should only be used as a screening test [4]. A review of 10 years' worth of participation in the Sweat Testing program has demonstrated consistent enrolments in sweat chloride analysis but a decline in sweat conductivity analysis (see Figure 1). From a total of 27 participating laboratories in 2013, 12 participants submitted for sweat conductivity. In 2023, only one participating laboratory from the 25 was still submitting for sweat conductivity. This trend has been driven by the decreasing number of Australian laboratories returning sweat conductivity results, with the last Australian laboratory participating in 2021. Until this year, the overseas participation was unchanged but also decreased in 2022, leaving behind a single overseas laboratory remaining in 2023 (see Figure 2). Graph showing the trend of participation in reporting sweat conductivity and chloride over the last 10 years. Dark blue columns represent the sweat conductivity participation, and the red line shows participants enrolled and returning results for chloride. Column graph highlighting breakdown of the Australian and overseas sweat conductivity participants over the last 10 years. We conclude that the decline in sweat conductivity testing is consistent with the recommendation that sweat conductivity measurement alone is not an adequate test for CF. This justified the removal of sweat -Abstract Truncated-
medical laboratory technology