Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common clinical condition with significant adverse consequences for the patient and it is recognized as a significant public health problem. The role of laboratory medicine in diagnosis and management of CKD is of great importance: the diagnosis and staging are based on estimation of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and assessment of albuminuria (or proteinuria). Therefore, the joint working group of the Croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine and Croatian chamber of medical biochemists for laboratory diagnostics in CKD issued this national recommendation regarding laboratory diagnostics of CKD. Key factors for laboratories implementing the national guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CKD are: 1. Ensure good communication between laboratory professionals and clinicians, such as nephrologists or specialists in general/family medicine, 2. Ensure all patients are provided with the same availability of laboratory diagnostics, 3. Ensure creatinine assays are traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) method and have minimal bias and acceptable imprecision, 4. Select the appropriate GFR estimating formula. Recommended equation is the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD – EPI) equation, 5. In reporting the key laboratory tests (creatinine, eGFR, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio) use the appropriate reporting units, 6. Provide adequate information on limitations of creatinine measurement. The manuscript has been organized to identify critical points in laboratory tests used in basic laboratory diagnostics of CKD and is based on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease.
Izvorni znanstveni članakOriginal scientifi c article Učes ta lo st po je di nih pos tu pa ka iz va na na li tič ke fa ze la bo ra to rij ske di jag nos ti ke u Hr vat skoj -pres ječ no an ket no is tra ži va nje Se lf re por ted rou ti nes and pro ce du res for the extra-a na lyti cal pha se of la bo ra to ry prac ti ce in Croa tia -cro ss-sec tio nal sur vey stu dy Li di ja Bi li ć-Zul le 1,2* , Ana-Ma ria Šimundić 3 , Ves na Šupak Smolčić 1 , No ra Ni ko lac 3 , Lo re na Honović 4 1 Cli ni cal De par tme nt of La bo ra to ry Diag nos ti cs, Ri je ka Cli ni cal Hos pi tal Cen tre, Ri je ka, Croa tia 2 De par tme nt of Me di cal In for ma ti cs, Ri je ka Uni ver si ty School of Me di ci ne, Ri je ka, Croa tia 3 Uni ver si ty De par tme nt of Che mis try, Ses tre Mi los r dni ce Uni ver si ty Hos pi tal, Zag reb, Croa tia 4 La bo ra to ry of Ci ni cal Che mis try, Pu la Ge ne ral Hos pi tal, Pu la, Croa tia *Cor res pon di ng aut hor: li di ja.bilic-
IntroductionWe assessed the differences in faecal calprotectin (FC) concentrations measured by two assays depending on the stool consistency and extraction method.Materials and methodsStool samples were extracted using the EliA Stool Extraction Kit, Calex® Cap extraction device and respective weighing methods, while FC concentrations were measured using the EliATM Calprotectin and Bühlmann fCAL® Turbo method and checked for within- and between-method variability with regard to extraction method and stool consistency category. Extraction yield was evaluated for impact of different sample incubation time (10 min and 1 h) in extraction buffer for both methods and for impact of different initial sample dilutions (1:50, 1:100, 1:500) for fCAL® Turbo method.ResultsResults determined from Calex® Cap extracts were higher compared to weighing method extracts (mean bias 33.3%; P < 0.001), while no significant difference was found between results obtained with EliA Stool Extraction Kit and weighing method (mean bias 0.1%; P = 0.484), in both cases irrespective of stool consistency. Bühlmann fCAL® Turbo results were higher than EliATM Calprotectin results (mean bias 32.3%, P = 0.025 weighing method; and mean bias 53.9%, P < 0.001 extraction devices), the difference is dependent on stool consistency and FC concentration. Significantly higher FC extraction yield was obtained with longer sample incubation time for both methods (P = 0.019 EliATM Calprotectin; P < 0.001 fCAL® Turbo) and with increasing initial sample dilution for fCAL® Turbo method (P < 0.001).ConclusionPreanalytical stool sample handling proved to be a crucial factor contributing to within- and between-FC assay variability. Standardization is urgently needed in order to assure comparable and reliable FC results.
IntroductionEarly identification and management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly cost-effective and can reduce the risk of kidney failure progression and cardiovascular disease. In 2014, the Joint Croatian Working Group (JCWG) for laboratory diagnostic of CKD on the behalf of Croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine (CSMBLM) and Croatian chamber of medical biochemists (CCMB) conducted a survey across Croatian medical-biochemistry laboratories to assess the current practice in this area of laboratory medicine. The aim of this study was to present the data collected through the survey and to give insight about laboratory diagnostics of chronic kidney disease in Croatia.Materials and methodsAn invitation to participate in the survey was sent to all Croatian medical-biochemistry laboratories (N = 196). The questionnaire was designed in a form of questions and statements, with possible multiple answers, comprising 24 questions.ResultsThe response rate was 80/196 (40.8%). 39 answers were from primary medical-biochemistry laboratories. 31/78 (0.40) laboratories measure creatinine with non-standardized method (uncompensated Jaffe method). 58/78 (0.74) of laboratories that measure creatinine do not report eGFR values. Similar number of laboratories (58/80, 0.73) do not measure urine albumin or protein.ConclusionsThere is a large heterogeneity among Croatian laboratories regarding measuring methods, reporting units and reference intervals (cut-off values), both for creatinine and urine albumin or protein. The two key prerequisites for CKD screening, automatic reporting of eGFR and albuminuria or proteinuria assessment, are not implemented nationwide. There is a need for harmonization in laboratory diagnostics of CKD in Croatia.
e15551 Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is the 8th most common cancer cause of cancer deaths in Croatia and 2nd most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. GC of the intestinal type is usually preceded by a chronic atrophic gastritis which is a precancerous change in the stomach. Methods: A reliable diagnostic tool for the early detection of the GC is essential. Screening programs have led to an improvement of overall 5-y survival rate for GC in Japan and Pepsinogen test method was suggested to reduce mortality from gastric cancer. The gold standard for the diagnosis of GC is the pathohistological study of biopsies obtained during an upper GI endoscopy, an invasive method that is too complicated for use in population screening and patients with comorbidity. We have conducted a prospective single center clinical study over a period of > 2 years to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of reagents, and to determine if these reagents can be part of routine. Inclusion criteria for the study were: signed informed consent, life expectancy > 12, and exclusion criteria were: previous treatments for any malignancy, current usage of IPP or NSAIDs medication, poor ECOG performance status ≥3, known history of H. pylori eradication treatment or gastric surgery. We previously reported preliminary results of PG test method in Croatian population. Here, we present mature data after median follow-up of 26 months. Statistical analyses were performed by using a Mann-Whitney U test, multiple logistic regression and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to evaluate the predictive power of biomarkers. Results: Blood samples have been collected from patients with suspicious to GC attending for endoscopy or surgery. We used cut off points to evaluate gastric cancer risk: PGI ≤ 70 and PGI/II ratio ≤ 3.0. Of the 116 patients, 25 patients had GC and 91 had non-malignant pathology on tissue biopsy (like atrophic gastritis). Based on an optimal cut-off value calculated by ROC curve analysis had accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 86.2%, 60.0%, 93.4%, 65.2%and 89.47%, respectively, for the diagnosis of GC. AUC was 0.767 (95% CI 64.0-89.0). Conclusions: The single use of pepsinogen tests is not sufficient for stomach cancer detection; however, it provides a valuable test for selecting a population that needs further diagnosing. Meanwhile, its high specificity could also help to avoid unnecessary endoscopy, especially in older population or patients with heavy burden of comorbidity. Clinical trial information: 2016-0019-34.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.