AimsPublic Health England has identified that in COVID-19, death rates among ethnic minorities far exceeds that of the white population. While the increase in ethnic minorities is likely to be multifactorial, to date, no studies have looked to see whether values for routine clinical biochemistry parameters differ between ethnic minority and white individuals.MethodsBaseline biochemical data for 22 common tests from 311 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presenting to hospital in April 2020 in whom ethnicity data were available was retrospectively collected and evaluated. Data comparisons between ethnic minority and white groups were made for all patient data and for the subset of patients subsequently admitted to intensive care.ResultsWhen all patient data were considered, the ethnic minority population had statistically significant higher concentrations of C reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase, while troponin T was higher in the white group. A greater proportion of ethnic minority patients were subsequently admitted to intensive care, but when the presenting biochemistry of this subset of patients was compared, no significant differences were observed between ethnic minority and white groups.ConclusionOur data show for the first time that routine biochemistry at hospital presentation in COVID-19 differs between ethnic minority and white groups. Among the markers identified, CRP was significantly higher in the ethnic minority group pointing towards an increased tendency for severe inflammation in this group.

Background:To reduce health inequalities, the creatinine-based chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration 2021 formula for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is replacing the 2009 formula, which required adjustment specifically for Black individuals. We compared the 2021 and 2009 creatinine-based formulae with cystatin C-based eGFR in Black people on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV RNA <200 c/ml.Methods:Cross-sectional analysis of paired serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements. Bias, imprecision, accuracy, and performance for identifying individuals with eGFR cystatin C <60 (units: ml/min per 1.73 m2) were determined. The effects of ART with no, mild-moderate, or marked effect on tubular creatinine secretion on the performance of the 2021 formula was assessed.Results:We included 362 individuals (mean age 51 years, 56% female, mean eGFR-cystatin C 88.3). Overall, the 2021 (vs. the 2009 race-adjusted) formula was less biased and had improved imprecision and accuracy compared with eGFR-cystatin C but underestimated eGFR-cystatin C in those with eGFR ≥90 and overestimated eGFR-cystatin C in those with eGFR <60. The 2021 (vs. the 2009) formula had high specificity (95% vs. 97%) and negative predictive value (97% vs. 96%), but low sensitivity (56% vs. 52%) and positive predictive value (44% vs. 54%) for identifying individuals with eGFR-cystatin C <60 (P > 0.25). Performance at the eGFR <60 cut-off was minimally affected by ART exposure group.Conclusion:The CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine-based formula was better aligned with eGFR-cystatin C than the 2009 formula. eGFR-cystatin C may provide clinically useful information in Black people with eGFR <60 irrespective of ART regimen.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Transgender people may avoid seeking medical care due to previous negative experiences and fear of discrimination. Clinical laboratories can contribute to a poor patient experience and clinical outcome when the design and functionality of laboratory information management systems do not consider the needs of transgender patients. This survey aimed to capture current practices in United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland clinical laboratories concerning how transgender patient data and test requests are managed throughout the total testing process. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to clinical laboratory professionals in November 2021. Thirty-three questions covered how gender variables are recorded for transgender patients and used to inform gender-specific calculations, test access, and reference intervals. Results: Of the 66 respondents, 70% were based in laboratories in England, with a majority of laboratories having ISO 15189 accreditation and processing 1000-10,000 blood samples daily. Eighty-five percent stated that their LIMS had a single field recording sex or gender information. Forty-three percent did not limit test access based on gender, but 68% did not append reference intervals for patients with unknown or indeterminate gender. Conclusions: This survey was the first to quantify how clinical laboratories manage sex and gender information and report results for transgender and non-binary patients, and details several key recommendations based on the survey responses.