Shimadzu Europe
  • News
    • Featured Articles
    • Product News
    • E-News
  • Magazine
    • About us
    • Digital edition
    • Archived issues
    • Free subscriptions
    • Media kit
    • Submit Press Release
  • White Papers
  • Events
  • Suppliers
  • E-Alert
  • Contact us
  • FREE newsletter subscription
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
Clinical Laboratory int.
  • Allergies
  • Cardiac
  • Gastrointestinal
  • Hematology
  • Microbiology
  • Microscopy & Imaging
  • Molecular Diagnostics
  • Pathology & Histology
  • Protein Analysis
  • Rapid Tests
  • Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
  • Tumour Markers
  • Urine Analysis

Archive for category: Featured Articles

Featured Articles

Quality control: the emergence of risk-based analysis

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia

One of the fastest-paced developments in clinical laboratories has been in the area of quality control (QC) systems. Its driver has been the increase in the performance and sophistication of QC software, which has progressively tightened benchmarks for acceptable standards. On the plus side, improved QC systems clearly help a laboratory to serve the needs of patients more efficiently. Less clear is the latest, paradigm-shifting QC guideline known as EP-23; it is so far restricted to the US (where it originates), but is likely to have a major impact on Europe.

Quality control in a lab concerns routine operational and technical activities to verify that a particular test is conducted correctly. The main aim of QC software has been to ensure the validity of both test methodology and results, to define and set acceptable SDs (standard deviations), and to correct errors if they occur (ideally before they do so), or flag them as such.

There is a wide variety of software for laboratory QC. Market leaders such as Westgard and Bio-Rad supply end-to-end solutions. Other vendors provide application specific software, for example Hematronix’s Real-Time and Quantimetrix’s Quantrol Online for monitoring performance against peers, Boston Biomedica’s AccuChart for infectious disease testing, etc.

Staff challenges
The capability of the staff who run laboratory tests is a major issue, but this has long been attended to – in terms of accreditation of study programmes and training courses as well as requirements for continuing education to stay abreast of developments in the field. In the US, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Act (1988) legally ensures that laboratory staff have to be up to the mark.

On the other hand, staffing has recently begun posing another set of problems. This is because many laboratory personnel who ushered in the IT era have begun to retire. In spite of high levels of unemployment, finding an adequately qualified pool of new recruits is proving to be a major problem in the US. [1]

As with any other core systems software, QC has been in perpetual evolution – a result of ever-changing regulations and market forces. Even the most intuitive and adaptive software requires people, experienced people, to tweak and adapt the programs in order to get them to work well and deliver the best results within a particular environment. QC is no exception.

The need for qualified personnel is set to increase dramatically as US laboratories shift away from the current system of equivalent QC to risk-based analysis, which is based on a more scientifically rigorous methodology. The US has decided to completely abandon equivalent QC in favour of a new risk-based analysis system, known as EP-23.

Equivalent versus risk-based QC
Standard operating procedures (and inbuilt IT system capabilities) for equivalent QC usually entailed running controls just once a month. In case of an aberration, the entire month load of patients (or over 8% of the annual total) needed to be recalled, samples retaken and tests rerun. Scheduling the re-tests alongside a current batch almost invariably led to capacity bottlenecks, which could then spill over into the subsequent months. Risk-based analysis is meant to do away with such contingencies.

Nevertheless, risk-based analysis also means more complex software, and more human intervention. It requires identifying potential error sources in a test or device, and implementing (external or ‘wet’) controls to reduce the risk. Meanwhile, the pathways to implement EP-23 remain somewhat nebulous. Proponents of risk-based analysis, on their part, acknowledge its complexity, but argue that the costs of error in equivalent QC far outweigh the latter, not only in terms of re-running tests but in case of wrong diagnosis.

EP-23 will drive need for skilled lab staff
Clearly, EP-23 will rely heavily on experienced laboratory personnel. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), the US professional society mandated with establishing EP-23, notes: [2]

“The decision of how the laboratory performs its risk assessment to develop a quality control plan (QCP) will be up to the laboratory director. Some tests analysed on the same analyser may have risks of error so similar that they can be grouped on the same QCP, with only minor additions or deletions for individual tests, while other tests on the same analyser may have significantly greater, or lesser, risks and need a completely different approach to a QCP.” It also acknowledges that there “is no specific format that is required for the presentation of a QCP.”

In an official presentation on EP-23 by the Centers for Disease Control, [3]  CLSI goes on to add: “Labs will receive guidance to enable them to develop effective, cost-efficient QC protocols that will ensure appropriate application of local regulatory requirements based on the technologies selected by the lab and reflective of the lab’s unique environmental aspects. Labs will receive guidance to develop QC processes and procedures to reduce negative impact of test system’s limitation, while considering laboratory environmental/operator factors like personnel competency, temperature, storage conditions, clinical use of test results, etc.”
In such a scenario, a looming shortage of qualified personnel would hardly help.

Large laboratories clearly have an edge in being ready for a shift to EP-23, since they can afford to recruit specialist consultants to manage the changeover. For their smaller counterparts, the outlook is likely to be very different.

Europe and EP-23
The impact of EP-23 on Europe remains to be seen. At present, the EU has made no official comment, in spite of the inevitable issues which could arise, for example within the framework of the International Conference for Harmonization (ICH).

Part of the reason for its nonchalance may simply lie in the fact that there is no similar European laboratory QC standard, like EP-23. Indeed, several EU countries have their own national systems covering QC in laboratories – for example Belgium’s Directive pratique pour la mise en place d’un système qualité dans les laboratoires agréés dans le cadre de l’INAMI, France’s Guide de bonne exécution des analyses de biologie clinique, and Britain’s CPA Manual for Laboratory Accreditation.

On its part, European standard EN 45001, currently recommended for laboratories, is far broader in scope than EP-23. It covers not only QC but technical competence, human resources, organizational structure, document management and much more. It is also based on the international ISO Guide 25. ISO 25 is currently under revision, and is due to replace EN 45001.

US proponents for globalizing EP-23 note that its inspiration too lies in the accepted ISO standard, 14971. Between the sweeping generalities of EN 45001 and the different national systems in place for lab QC, it may be hard to argue that EP-23 could be a good path forward for Europe too.

References
1. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/
news/lab-staff-shortages-call-better-point-care-diagnostics
2. http://www.clsi.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Education/EP23QA/EP23_Q_A.htm
3. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/pdf/Addenda/cliac0908/Addendum%20N.pdf

https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 0 0 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:45Quality control: the emergence of risk-based analysis
25848 Span CLI Dark Blue Dipstick

PRECISION at it’s best

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/25848-Span-CLI-Dark-Blue-Dipstick.jpg 987 700 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:57PRECISION at it’s best
26024 Thermo Brahms MR proADM Ad EN 92x178mm PRINT

Superior risk stratification with ProADM

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/26024-Thermo-Brahms-MR-proADM-Ad_EN_92x178mm_PRINT.jpg 1000 517 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:49Superior risk stratification with ProADM
C50 Figure 1

ANCA-IIF: Still the screening method of choice

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles, Autoimmunity & Allergy /by 3wmedia

by Dr Petraki Munujos Systemic vasculitides are a group of inflammatory idiopathic clinical syndromes usually classified by the size of the vessels being affected. Among them, the small vessels vasculitides show clear associations with the presence in the patients sera of antibodies directed against cytoplasmic antigens of neutrophils (ANCA).

Read more
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/C50_Figure-1.jpg 136 300 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522024-08-26 10:23:18ANCA-IIF: Still the screening method of choice
LABEX ad

HEMATOLOGY REAGENTS FOR CELLCOUNTERS

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/LABEX-ad.jpg 1000 696 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:53HEMATOLOGY REAGENTS FOR CELLCOUNTERS

Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: moving towards personalized medicine

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia

Genetic polymorphisms are well recognized as one of the main cause of variations in personal drug response. Pharmacogenetics investigates the role of polymorphisms in the individual response to pharmacological treatments in order to design specific genetic tests, which can be performed before drug administration to optimize drug response and reduce adverse events.

by Dr Francesca Marini and Professor Maria Luisa Brandi

Personalized medicine based on genetics
The complete sequencing of the human genome in 2001, by the Human Genome Project, has opened the new era of personalized medicine based on genetics. Polymorphic variations are suspected to cover at least 20% of the entire human genome. An average of about 6 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and other sequence variations (i.e. copy number variations, CNVs) are estimated to exist between any two randomly selected human individuals. Advancements in understanding of variations in the human genome and rapid improvements in high-throughput genotyping technology have made it feasible to study most of the human genetic diversity in relation to phenotypes. Today, the challenge for genomic medicine is contextualizing the myriad of genomic variations in terms of their functional consequences for disease predisposition and for different responses to medications.

The ability to predict the outcome of drug therapies, by a simple analysis of common variants in the genotype, is today one of the main challenges for individualised medicine. Pharmacogenetics and its whole-genome application, pharmacogenomics, are the utilization of individual genetic data to predict the individual response to drug treatment with respect to both beneficial and adverse effects.

They, currently, represent one of the disciplines most pursued by basic and clinical research. Pharmacogenetics examines the single gene and/or single polymorphism influences in drug response in terms of drug absorption and disposition (pharmacokinetics) or drug action (pharmacodynamics), including polymorphic variations in genes encoding drug-metabolizing enzymes, drug transporters, drug receptors and drug biological targets. Pharmacogenomics studies alterations in gene and protein expression that may be correlated with pharmacological function and therapeutic response, encompassing factors beyond those that are inherited, such as epigenetics (pharmacoepigenomics).

One of the main goals of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics is the identification of genetic biomarkers that lead to the recognition, in advance, of patients who will not respond to a therapy, or who will be at risk of developing adverse reactions, in order to design specific pre-prescription genetic tests. A biomarker is most commonly a genetic variant, but can also include functional deficiencies, expression changes, chromosomal abnormalities, epigenetic variants, etc. A necessary step, for the application of pharmacogenetic results into clinical practice is the validation of biomarkers, a process that requires several stages: 1) the correct design of prospective association studies and setting of all experimental conditions to increase sensitivity, reliability and specificity of the assay; 2) replication of results in different, independent studies; 3) biomarker characterization, through evaluation of variability of a particular biomarker in different human populations to determine ethnical differences, relevant interactions and potential confounders; and 4) expression and functional studies, to establish the possibility of a casual relationship between a candidate biomarker and the response to a drug.

Pharmacogenetic data on more than 110 commonly used drugs and over 35 genes are currently depicted in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels” (http://www.fda.gov/drugs/scienceresearch/researchareas/pharmacogenetics/ucm083378.htm), and, for many of them, the list includes specific clinical actions to be taken based on genetic information. These specific tests are currently used in clinical practice, mostly in oncology, psychiatry, neurology and cardiovascular disease. The first clinical application of a pharmacogenetic test was approved by the FDA in January 2005: the AmpliChip CYP450 test that includes genetic variants of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genes (two drug–metabolising P450 cytochromes, responsible of the most frequent variation in phase I metabolism of approximately 80% of all prescribed drugs today). In June 2007, the FDA released an online “Guidance on pharmacogenetic tests and genetic tests for heritable markers” (available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm077862.htm), which presents general guidelines for the rapid transfer of experimental results to the clinical practice and for the correct performing and data handling of pharmacogenetics screenings. The application of rapid, simple and non-invasive pharmacogenetic tests, that can be easily performed on a blood sample and do not need to be repeated during the patient’s lifetime, would help clinicians in tailoring the best therapy for each patient, reducing adverse events and maximizing positive effects. Results from pharmacogenetic tests would allow clinicians to adjust dosages, choose between similar drugs or offer an alternative therapy, if available, before the administration of each treatment. Data obtained from pharmacogenetic tests should become part of the patient medical records, with access protected by medical privacy laws, and available, before drug administration, to clinicians granted the official permission of the patient.

The accuracy of pharmacogenetic testing and the correct management and interpretation of the results will become crucial factors in determining the benefits and/or risks for patients. Also, all the new technologies, including the development of pharmacogenetic diagnostic tools, will require a high level of expertise to be appropriately applied. Several studies have documented the lack of knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians in the field of genetic tests, with only 4% of general practitioners in the US and only 21% in the UK feeling confident and sufficiently prepared for counselling patients regarding genetic tests [1, 2]. Specific training programmes about pharmacogenetic testing for medical geneticists and health care professionals are strongly recommended and they should encompass clinical genetics, genetic counselling, knowledge of inherited and ancillary genetic data management and legal protection.

Pharmacogenetics and osteoporosis: state of the art and translation into clinical practice
Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disorder of the elderly, affecting both sexes (with a higher prevalence in women) and all ethnicities, and is characterized by a low bone mass and bone microarchitectural deterioration, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to spontaneous fracture. Today it is well known that, despite the fact that osteoporosis is a multifactorial complex disorder, genetic factors exert a key role in the acquisition of personal bone mass peak, in the determination of microarchitectural bone structure, and in the regulation of bone metabolism. Numerous and effective anti-fracture treatments, acting on bone cells to restore a normal bone turnover, are today available: hormone replacement therapy (HRT), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), bisphosphonates, calcitonin, parathyroid hormone (PTH), Teriparatide, Strontium Ranelate, and anti-RANK monoclonal antibody (Denusomab), administered alone or in combination with supplements of vitamin D and calcium. Response to all of these drugs is variable among treated patients both in terms of efficacy [evaluated as bone mineral density (BMD) gain, reduction of bone turnover, reduction of fracture risk] and of adverse reactions. In the last two decades, some pharmacogenetic studies on anti-osteoporotic drugs have been performed, but their number is still very limited and no conclusive results are available yet.

The main characteristics and results of these studies have been summarized in some recent reviews [3–5]. Results, replicated in at least two different unrelated studies, seem to indicate that:

  1. The PvuII polymorphism of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) gene is associated with the response to HRT. The P allele appeared to have a more positive effect on BMD maintenance and gain and on reduction of fracture risk.
  2. The BsmI polymorphism of vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene is associated with the response to various anti-osteoporotic therapies (raloxifene and bisphosphonates – the latter alone or in combination with raloxifene or HRT). The BB genotype seemed to be related to a higher BMD increase after drug treatment.
  3. Sp1 polymorphism of the gene encoding the alpha1 chain of collagene type 1 (COL1A1) is associated with the response to HRT and bisphosphonates. SS genotype was found to be associated to higher increase of BMD.
  4. The rs2297480 polymorphisms of the farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FDPS) gene is associated to the response to bisphosphonates. A allele and AA genotype seemed to present a better response in terms of reduction of bone turnover markers or increase of BMD values.

These preliminary data appear to be promising, but they surely need to be implemented and validated before any application to clinical practice. Association studies on pharmacogenetics of osteoporosis need to be confirmed in larger cohorts, different ethnical populations and multicentre studies, preferentially from prospective controlled clinical trials, including analysis of genetic variations in genes encoding for drug transporters, drug receptors, drug metabolizing enzymes and drug molecular targets. Moreover, the single gene-approach should be integrated with multi-candidate gene and genome-wide association studies on large cohorts to individuate also unsuspected candidate genes and polymorphisms. Subsequently, data obtained from genetic studies should be implemented and validated using gene expression and proteomic analyses and by performing specific functional in vitro and in vivo studies. Also, the effects of epigenetic mechanisms (i.e. histone modifications, cytosine methylation in gene promoters and microRNAs), on the regulation of expression of genes encoding drug metabolic enzymes, transporters receptors and targets, should be taken into account and investigated.

References
1. Burke W, Emery J. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3(7): 561–566.
2. Suchard MA, Yudkin P, Sinsheimer JS, Fowler GH. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49(438): 45–46.
3. Marini F, Brandi ML. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2010; 5(6): 905–910.
4. Marini F, Brandi ML. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2012; 10(3): 221–227.
5. Marini F, Brandi ML. J Pharmacogenom Pharmacoproteomics 2012; 3(3): 109.

The authors
Francesca Marini PhD and Maria Luisa Brandi MD, PhD
Metabolic Bone Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, 50139, Italy.
E-mail: m.brandi@dmi.unifi.it

https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 0 0 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:39:07Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: moving towards personalized medicine
p16 1

Real time RT-PCR is the gold standard for laboratory diagnosis

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia

Noroviruses are the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis in humans. In recent years diagnostic methods for Noroviruses, especially real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of Norovirus-RNA, have been improved and become more widely available.

by Dr Christoph Metzger-Boddien

Noroviruses are transmitted by fecally contaminated food or water, by person-to-person contact, and via aerosolization of the virus and subsequent contamination of surfaces. They are the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis in humans [15]. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach cramping. Additional symptoms are fever, chills, headache, muscle aches and a general sense of tiredness. The onset of symptoms can begin quickly and an infected person may feel sick after a very short period of time. In most people, the illness lasts for about one or two days. People with Norovirus illness are contagious from onset of symptoms until at least three days after recovery. Some people may be contagious for even longer. Noroviruses are highly contagious. The estimated dose is as low as 18 viral particles. Approximately 5 billion infectious doses can be present in each gram of feces during peak shedding [16]. Infection can be more severe in young children and elderly people. Dehydration can occur rapidly and may require medical treatment or hospitalization [10].

Sporadic disease
In recent years diagnostic methods for Noroviruses, especially real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of Norovirus-RNA, were improved and became more widely available. Subsequently, it became obvious that Noroviruses are the leading cause of sporadic gastroenteritis in all age groups. In Germany, since the implementation of the notification requirement according to §§6 and 7 of the infection protection act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG) a rise of reported cases can be observed with a seasonal accumulation during the winter months from October to March (2001: 9,223 cases, 2004: 64,973 cases, 2007: 201,242 and 2008: 212,769 cases, source: Robert-Koch-Institute, RKI, Berlin), but still a high estimated number of unreported cases remain.

Outbreaks
Noroviruses are the predominant cause of gastroenteritis outbreaks worldwide. Data from the United States and European countries show that Norovirus is responsible for approximately 50% of all reported gastroenteritis outbreaks (range: 36%–59%) [12]. Periodic increases in Norovirus outbreaks are associated with the emergence of new GII.4 strains. These emergent GII.4 strains are rapidly replacing existing strains predominating in circulation and sometimes cause seasons with high Norovirus activity, as in 2002–2003 and 2006—2007 [17, 20]. Genetic drift successfully promotes the re-emergence of GII-4 variants in the population [13]. Because the virus can be transmitted by food, water and contaminated environmental surfaces as well as directly from person to person, and because there is no long-lasting immunity to Noroviruses, outbreaks can occur in a variety of institutional settings (e.g. nursing homes, hospitals, and schools) and affect people of all ages. Multiple routes of transmission can occur within an outbreak; for example, point-source outbreaks from a food exposure often result in secondary person-to-person spread within an institution or community [4]. Of the 1,518 Norovirus outbreaks in the USA, during 2010 – 2011, laboratory confirmed by the CDC, 59% were from long-term care facilities (889 outbreaks); 8% were from restaurants (123 Outbreaks); 7% were from parties & events 7% (99 outbreaks); 4% were from hospitals (65 outbreaks); 4% were from schools (64 outbreaks); 4% were from cruise ships (55 outbreaks); and 14% were from other and unknown events (223 outbreaks) [10].

Foods that are commonly involved in outbreaks of Norovirus infection are e.g. leafy greens, fresh fruits, and shellfish. However, any food that is served raw or is being handled after cooking can get contaminated.

In Germany, according to data published by the RKI, the number of Norovirus outbreaks has increased by 20% between 2009 and 2010. Recently, the RKI published the final report of a huge outbreak of acute gastroenteritis in five Eastern German federal states. The source of the outbreak was a batch of deep-frozen strawberries. In total, over 11,000 cases of disease occurred. It was Germany’s largest foodborne outbreak of gastroenteritis, with several hundred institutions affected. In a considerable proportion of tested patients, Noroviruses were found [4].

Analysis of outbreak costs
In fact there is a huge socio-economic impact of Norovirus-associated diseases. A study of Johnston et al. 2007, showed the costs of an outbreak including the estimated loss of revenue because of unit closures, sick leave and cleaning expenses [7]. Because of the high contagiousness of Noroviruses early diagnosis in order to set up appropriate hygiene interventions is the most useful measure. In 2004, Lopman et al. showed, that diagnosis of the first case within three days instead of four reduces the duration of an outbreak by seven days [5, 8].

Diagnostic methods
The clinical specimens used for Norovirus diagnosis in most cases are stool and vomit samples. There is no cell culture method for the isolation of Noroviruses from clinical specimens available. Therefore, the majority of clinical virology laboratories perform RT-PCR assays for Norovirus detection. Additionally, for preliminary identification of Norovirus as the cause of gastroenteritis outbreaks, there are enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and rapid tests available. However, these kits are not recommended for individual diagnosis.

Real-time RT-PCR assays
The region between ORF1-ORF2 is the most conserved region of the Norovirus genome, with a high level of nucleotide sequence identity across strains within a genogroup [6]. This region is ideal for designing broadly reactive primers and probes for real-time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays for high throughput screening in clinical diagnostic laboratories and for the detection of Norovirus RNA in
environmental samples (e.g. food and water).

The quality of the real time RT-PCR results is dependent on the quality of template RNA-extraction from clinical and environmental samples. The implementation of extraction controls in commercial RT-PCR duplex assays (e.g. Control-RNA in MutaREX Norovirus Kit, Immundiagnostik AG, Bensheim, Germany) minimizes the risk of false negative results due to inhibition or partial inhibition of the reverse transcription step and/or the PCR and due to processing errors during the extraction of RNA. Control RNA is added to a sample before RNA extraction with a commercial kit (e.g. High pure viral RNA Kit, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany;  or intron viral gene spin, gerbion, Kornwestheim, Germany) and its recovery is measured subsequently in the duplex real time RT-PCR. The latest generation of commercially available Norovirus real time RT-PCR Kits is extremely sensitive and specific [18]. Therefore such tests have become the gold standard for Norovirus laboratory diagnosis in the past few years.

Enzyme immunoassays
For detection of Norovirus antigen in clinical samples, rapid assays (e.g. EIA) offer an alternative to real time RT-PCR assays. However, the development of a broadly reactive EIA for Noroviruses has been challenging because of the number of antigenically distinct Norovirus strains and the high viral load required for a positive signal in these assays. Commercial kits include pools of cross-reactive monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. In evaluation studies, the sensitivity of these kits ranged from 36% to 80%, and specificity has ranged from 47% to 100% compared with real time RT-PCR [1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 19].

Summary
Norovirus real time RT-PCR Kits offer a sensitive, specific, fast and cost effective diagnosis. Results can be generated within one hour. But clearly only real time RT-PCR Kits containing control RNA used as extraction control for process monitoring produce feasible and reliable results. RNA extraction from clinical specimens and the reverse transcription of RNA to cDNA are the most crucial steps in Norovirus RT-PCR procedures. Errors in sample preparation and/or RT-reaction can lead to false negative results in conventional RT-PCRs as well as real time RT-PCRs when internal controls (RNA or DNA) are already added to the PCR master-mix. Laboratories performing in-house RT-PCR for Noroviruses should critically evaluate their tests with regard to these high quality standards. Because of the modest performance of Norovirus Enzyme Immunoassays, particularly their poor sensitivity, they are not recommended for clinical diagnosis of Norovirus infection in sporadic cases of gastroenteritis. Negative samples will have to be confirmed by real time RT-PCR in outbreaks as well as in sporadic cases.

References
1. Burton-MacLeod JA, et al. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:2587–95.
2. de Bruin E, et al. J Virol Methods 2006;137:259–64.
3. Dimitriadis A, et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;24:615–8.
4. Großer Gastroenteritis-Ausbruch durch eine Charge mit Noroviren kontaminierter Tiefkühlerdbeeren in Betreuungseinrichtungen und Schulen in Ostdeutschland, 09-10/2012. Epidemiologisches Bulletin Nr. 41/12: 414-417, Oct 15th, 2012
5. Hansen S, et al. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65: 348–53
6. Hoehne M, et al. BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 69.
7. Johnston CP, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:534–40.
8. Lopman BA, et al. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10: 1827–34
9. Morillo SG, et al. J Virol Methods 2011, 173(1):13-16.
10. Norovirus. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC 24/7 12 Apr 2012.
11. Okitsu-Negishi S, et al. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:3784–6.
12. Patel MM, et al. J Clin Virol 2009;44:1–8.
13. Reuter G, et al. J Clin Virol. 2008 Jun;42(2):135-40. Epub 2008 Apr 16.
14. Richards AF, et al. J Clin Virol 2003;26:109–15.
15. Said MA, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2008; 47 (9): 1202–8.
16. Teunis PF, et al. J Med Virol 2008;80:1468–76.
17. Vega E, et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(8):1389–95.
18. Vennema H, et al. QCMD Norovirus 2011 EQA Programme Final Report. Dec. 2011.
19. Wilhelmi de Cal I, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect 2007;13:341–3.
20. Yen C, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(6):568–71.

The author
Christoph Metzger-Boddien, PhD
gerbion GmbH & Co. KG
Remsstr. 1, D-70806 Kornwestheim, Germany

https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/p16-1.jpg 31 400 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:45Real time RT-PCR is the gold standard for laboratory diagnosis
26115 CLI Dynex Agility Ad Final

AGILITY

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/26115-CLI-Dynex-Agility-Ad-Final.jpg 986 700 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:57AGILITY
26144 CLI 2012

Diagnostic tools for reliable patient management

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia
https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/26144-CLI-2012.jpg 653 700 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:38:58Diagnostic tools for reliable patient management
C58 Fig2 Anti PLA2R binding

Autoantibody diagnostics in glomerulonephritis

, 26 August 2020/in Featured Articles /by 3wmedia

The determination of autoantibodies is an important component in the diagnosis and differentiation of glomerular disease. Key analyses include antibodies against phospholipase A2 receptors (anti-PLA2R), the glomerular basement membrane (anti-GBM), neutrophil granulocyte cytoplasm (ANCA), double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and nucleosomes (ANuA). With these tests autoimmune reactions can be identified as causative factors of renal disease.

by Dr Jacqueline Gosink

Glomerulonephritis (GN) is an inflammation of the blood-filtering structures of the kidneys (glomeruli) which can lead to kidney failure if left untreated. The disease is associated with the symptom complexes nephritic syndrome and nephrotic syndrome. Nephritic syndrome is characterised by hematuria, mild to moderate proteinuria and hypertension and is observedain diseases such as post-infectious GN, lupus nephritis, rapid progressive GN and IgA nephropathy. Nephrotic syndrome combines heavy proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, hyperlipidemia and edema and is typical of membranous GN, minimal change GN and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Because of the wide range of potential causes, the diagnosis of GN can be difficult. The diagnostic process is based on clinical examination, biopsy, and laboratory tests on urine and blood. The serological analysis of specific autoantibodies allows autoimmune forms of GN to be identified and distinguished from nephropathies of other origins, for example hereditary conditions, infections, drug intoxication, electrolyte or acid-base disturbances, diabetes and hypertension.

Autoantibodies in GN may be directed against specific renal targets, such as PLA2R or the GBM, resulting in diseases that predominantly injure the kidneys. Or they may be non-organ-specific, for example ANCA, anti-dsDNA or ANuA. Non-organ-specific autoantibodies cause damage to a wide variety of organs. Thus, GN may represent just one manifestation of a complex systemic autoimmune disease, for example systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).

Anti-PLA2R antibodies
Autoantibodies against PLA2R are a new and highly specific marker for primary membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN), also known as idiopathic membranous nephropathy. Primary MGN is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease of the glomeruli and is one of the leading causes of nephrotic syndrome in adults. It is distinguished from secondary MGN, which is triggered by an underlying disease such as a malignant tumour, an infection, drug intoxication or another autoimmune disease such as SLE. Primary MGN accounts for 70-80% of cases of MGN, while the secondary form comprises around 20-30%. Clinical differentiation of the two forms is crucial since primary MGN is treated with immunosuppressants, whereas therapy for secondary MGN focuses on the causal disease.

The immune reactions leading to primary MGN, which were first described in 2009 [1], stem from autoantibodies binding to PLA2R (transmembrane glycoproteins, [Figure 1]) on the surface of the podocytes [Figure 2]. PLA2R of type M have been identified as the major target antigen of the autoantibodies. The antigen-antibody complexes are deposited in the GBM, triggering complement activation with overproduction of collagen IV and laminin. This damages the podocytes, resulting in protein entering the primary urine. With increasing proteinuria there is a higher long-term risk of kidney failure with major morbidity and mortality, especially from thromboembolic and cardiovascular complications.

Primary MGN is diagnosed by kidney puncture followed by histological examination or electron microscopy of the tissue to detect immunoglobulin-containing deposits in the GBM. Serological determination of anti-PLA2R antibodies supports the diagnostic procedure and has the advantage of being less time-consuming and less stressful for patients. Anti-PLA2R antibody analysis is, moreover, suitable for monitoring the activity of primary MGN and the response to therapy.

Until recently there was no reliable test to detect anti-PLA2R antibodies. A new recombinant-cell anti-PLA2R indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) developed to address this deficit has rapidly established itself as the gold standard for the serological diagnosis of primary MGN. The assay utilizes transfected human cells expressing recombinant PLA2R as the antigenic substrate [Figure 3] to provide monospecific antibody detection [2, 3]. The sensitivity of the test for primary MGN amounts to around 50-80% depending on the characteristics of cohort individuals, for example their disease activity or therapy status. In a retrospective clinical study [2] the Anti-PLA2R IIFT demonstrated a sensitivity of 52% in a cohort of 100 patients with biopsy-proven primary MGN and a specificity of 100% with respect to control subjects. In the first prospective study [4] the sensitivity amounted to 82% in patients with biopsy-proven MGN where no secondary cause could be found. An ELISA based on purified recombinant PLA2R has also been developed. It demonstrates >98% correlation with the IIFT and is particularly useful for quantification of antibody levels in therapy monitoring.

Anti-GBM antibodies
Autoantibodies against GBM are a highly specific and sensitive marker for Goodpasture’s syndrome, a rare, but potentially fatal autoimmune disease which is characterized by rapidly progressive GN and lung haemosiderosis. Diagnosis of this disease is challenging because of the speed of progression to organ failure and the initially unspecific symptoms. Serological parameters such as anti-GBM play a crucial role in obtaining an early diagnosis.

The primary target antigen of anti-GBM antibodies is the NC1 domain of the alpha chain of type IV collagen. The antibodies target the alveolar basement membrane or the GBM. In cases without lung involvement they are detected in more than 60% of patients and in cases with lung involvement in over 90%. Clinical progression of the disease correlates with antibody concentration, with high-titre circulating anti-GBM antibodies indicating an unfavourable prognosis.

Anti-GBM antibodies can be detected serologically by IIFT using sections of primate kidney as the antigenic substrate. Inclusion of a second substrate comprising microdots of purified GBM allows results to be confirmed at a glance. The substrates are positioned side by side as BIOCHIP Mosaics in the test fields of a microscope slide [Figure 4] and incubated in parallel. Further substrates for differential diagnostics, for example HEp-2 cells, granulocytes or other microdot substrates, can also be included in the BIOCHIP Mosaics, yielding a detailed patient antibody profile following a single incubation. Serum anti-GBM antibodies can alternatively be detected or confirmed quantitatively using the Anti-GBM ELISA.

ANCA
ANCA determination is a well-established tool for serological diagnosis and differentiation of different types of AAV, which often present as a rapidly progressive GN among other symptoms. The most important ANCA parameters include antibodies against proteinase 3, which are sensitive and specific markers for Wegener’s granulomatosis, and antibodies against myeloperoxidase (MPO), which occur in microscopic polyangiitis and other forms of AAV.

The standard method for detecting ANCA is IIFT using granulocytes to identify the typical staining patterns of anti-PR3 antibodies (cytoplasmic, cANCA) and anti-MPO antibodies (perinuclear, pANCA). BIOCHIP Mosaics are particularly useful for this application as they allow different substrates to be combined and analysed in parallel [Figure 5]. Recently, several new substrates have been developed to improve the ease and reliability of ANCA analysis still further. HEp-2 cells coated with granulocytes allow immediate differentiation between ANCA and anti-nuclear antibodies, while BIOCHIPs containing microdots of purified MPO or PR3 enable monospecific antibody characterization at the same time as the ANCA screening [5, 6].

Monospecific enzyme immunoassays such as ELISA or immunoblot are used to characterize the specificity of the target antigen. A recent major advance in ANCA ELISA is the development of a novel PR3 diagnostic antigen comprising an optimized mixture of native human (hn) PR3 and designer recombinant PR3 expressed authentically in human cells (hr). An ELISA based on this combined antigen provides unsurpassed sensitivity for the detection of anti-PR3 antibodies – 14% higher than even a capture ELISA (7). The Anti-PR3-hn-hr ELISA thus enhances ANCA diagnostics and is also suitable for long-term evaluation of patients.

Anti-dsDNA and anti-nucleosome antibodies
Anti-dsDNA and ANuA are among the immunological parameters used to diagnose SLE, which counts nephritis among its many and variable manifestations. These two markers provide the highest specificity and sensitivity in the serological diagnosis of SLE.

Anti-dsDNA antibodies are found in 60-90% of patients and represent the most established marker for SLE. A recently developed ELISA provides an exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity for detection of these antibodies owing to the use of a novel coating technology based on highly adhesive nucleosomes. The unspecific reactions that typically occur with traditionally used coating materials are thus avoided, and the clear presentation of the major DNA epitopes ensures a remarkably high sensitivity. In a published clinical comparison study using a large cohort of patients with SLE and other diseases [8], the Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA demonstrated the highest sensitivity for SLE (60.8%), exceeding that of conventional ELISA (35.4%), Crithidia luciliae IIFT (27.4%) and even Farr-RIA (53.1%) [Figure 6].

ANuA  [Figure 7] are specific for SLE and are a prognostic indicator for SLE with renal involvement. The frequency of ANuA is especially high in severe cases requiring transplantation (79%), compared to less severe lupus nephritis (18%) and SLE without nephritis (9%) [9]. The relevance of ANuA is, however, highly dependent on the assay used to detect them. If insufficiently purified nucleosomes are used in ELISA, then sera from patients with scleroderma or other diseases also frequently react, resulting in an unacceptably low specificity. The 2nd generation Anti-Nucleosome ELISA, in contrast, is based on a patented preparation of highly purified mononucleosomes, which are free of contaminating histone H1, non-histone proteins such as Scl-70, and chromatin DNA fragments. This ELISA provides an SLE specificity of close to 100% and a sensitivity of around 54%. Significantly, with this highly specific test ANuA have been shown to be present in 16-18% of SLE sera that are negative for anti-dsDNA antibodies [Table 1] [10, 11]. Thus, the determination of ANuA substantially enriches the serological diagnosis of SLE. When both ANuA and anti-dsDNA antibodies are analysed in parallel as first-line serological tests, the detection rate for SLE can be increased to 87%.

Conclusions
Recent developments in autoantibody diagnostics for nephrology include the groundbreaking anti-PLA2R IIFT for identifying primary MGN, as well as considerable  improvements in the sensitivity, specificity and convenience of tests for ANCA, anti-GBM, anti-dsDNA and ANuA. These advances have boosted the ease, reliability and relevance of autoantibody testing, aiding the diagnosis of autoimmune forms of GN, especially in their early stages. This is crucial to allow the implementation of interventional therapy and prevent the nephropathy progressing to a fatal end stage.

References
1. Beck et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009: 361: 11.21
2. Hoxha et al. Nephrology Diagnosis Transplantation 2011: 26 (8): 2526-32.
3. Debiec et al. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2011: 7(9): 496-8
4. Hoxha et al. Kidney International. 2012: 82: 797-804
5. Buschtez et al. Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie 2007: Band 66: 43, 10942-10.
6. Damoiseaux et al. JIM 2009: 348: 67-73
7. Damoiseaux J. et al. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2009; 68: 228-233.
8. Biesen et al. Lupus 2008; 17(5): 506-507.
9. Stinton et al. Lupus 2007; 15: 394-400.
10. Suer et al. J. Autoimmunity 2004: 22: 325-334.
11. Schluter et al. J. Lab Med. 2002; 26: 516-517.

The author
Jacqueline Gosink, PhD
Euroimmun AG
Luebeck, Germany

https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/C58_Fig2-Anti-PLA2R-binding.jpg 182 300 3wmedia https://clinlabint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/clinlab-logo.png 3wmedia2020-08-26 09:46:522021-01-08 11:39:05Autoantibody diagnostics in glomerulonephritis
Page 43 of 144«‹4142434445›»
Bio-Rad - Preparing for a Stress-free QC Audit

Latest issue of Clinical laboratory

November 2025

CLi Cover nov 2025
13 November 2025

New Chromsystems Product for Antiepileptic Drugs Testing

11 November 2025

Trusted analytical solutions for reliable results

10 November 2025

Chromsystems | Therapeutic Drug Monitoring by LC-MS/MS

Digital edition
All articles Archived issues

Free subscription

View more product news

Get our e-alert

The leading international magazine for Clinical laboratory Equipment for everyone in the Vitro diagnostics

Sign up today
  • News
    • Featured Articles
    • Product News
    • E-News
  • Magazine
    • About us
    • Archived issues
    • Free subscriptions
    • Media kit
    • Submit Press Release
clinlab logo blackbg 1

Prins Hendrikstraat 1
5611HH Eindhoven
The Netherlands
info@clinlabint.com

PanGlobal Media is not responsible for any error or omission that might occur in the electronic display of product or company data.

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Accept settingsHide notification onlyCookie settings

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may ask you to place cookies on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience and to customise your relationship with our website.

Click on the different sections for more information. You can also change some of your preferences. Please note that blocking some types of cookies may affect your experience on our websites and the services we can provide.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to provide the website, refusing them will affect the functioning of our site. You can always block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and block all cookies on this website forcibly. But this will always ask you to accept/refuse cookies when you visit our site again.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies, but to avoid asking you each time again to kindly allow us to store a cookie for that purpose. You are always free to unsubscribe or other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies, we will delete all cookies set in our domain.

We provide you with a list of cookies stored on your computer in our domain, so that you can check what we have stored. For security reasons, we cannot display or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser's security settings.

.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customise our website and application for you to improve your experience.

If you do not want us to track your visit to our site, you can disable this in your browser here:

.

Other external services

We also use various external services such as Google Webfonts, Google Maps and external video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data such as your IP address, you can block them here. Please note that this may significantly reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will only be effective once you reload the page

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Maps Settings:

Google reCaptcha settings:

Vimeo and Youtube videos embedding:

.

Privacy Beleid

U kunt meer lezen over onze cookies en privacy-instellingen op onze Privacybeleid-pagina.

Privacy policy
Accept settingsHide notification only

Subscribe now!

Become a reader.

Free subscription