Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter February 22, 2022

Lot-to-lot reagent verification: challenges and possible solutions

Tze Ping Loh, Sverre Sandberg and Andrea Rita Horvath

Abstract

Lot-to-lot verification is an important laboratory activity that is performed to monitor the consistency of analytical performance over time. In this opinion paper, the concept, clinical impact, challenges and potential solutions for lot-to-lot verification are exained.


Corresponding author: Tze Ping Loh, Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074, Singapore, Phone: (+65) 67724345, Fax: (+65) 67771613, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. Hicks, AJ, Carwardine, ZL, Hallworth, MJ, Kilpatrick, ES. Using clinical guidelines to assess the potential value of laboratory medicine in clinical decision-making. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021;31:010703. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2021.010703.Search in Google Scholar

2. Sikaris, K, Pehm, K, Wallace, M, Picone, D, Frydenberg, M. Review of serious failures in reported test results for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of patients by SA Pathology. Available from: http://www.sapathology.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/1fa1d43f-08ab-49e0-9875-369da73bc731/Final+Report+-+SA+PSA+Review+-+July+2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [Accessed 2 Feb 2022].Search in Google Scholar

3. Algeciras-Schimnich, A, Bruns, DE, Boyd, JC, Bryant, SC, La Fortune, KA, Grebe, SK. Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions. Clin Chem 2013;59:1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2013.205070.Search in Google Scholar

4. Chai, JH, Ma, S, Heng, D, Yoong, J, Lim, WY, Toh, SA, et al.. Impact of analytical and biological variations on classification of diabetes using fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test and HbA1c. Sci Rep 2017;7:13721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14172-8.Search in Google Scholar

5. Larsen, ML, Fraser, CG, Petersen, PH. A comparison of analytical goals for haemoglobin A1c assays derived using different strategies. Ann Clin Biochem 1991;28:272–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/000456329102800313.Search in Google Scholar

6. Petersen, PH, Jørgensen, LG, Brandslund, I, De Fine Olivarius, N, Stahl, M. Consequences of bias and imprecision in measurements of glucose and hba1c for the diagnosis and prognosis of diabetes mellitus. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2005;240:51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365510500236135.Search in Google Scholar

7. Petersen, PH, Klee, GG. Influence of analytical bias and imprecision on the number of false positive results using Guideline-Driven Medical Decision Limits. Clin Chim Acta 2014;430:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.12.014.Search in Google Scholar

8. Koerbin, G, Liu, J, Eigenstetter, A, Tan, CH, Badrick, T, Loh, TP. Missed detection of significant positive and negative shifts in gentamicin assay: implications for routine laboratory quality practices. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2018;28:010705. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.010705.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hammarsten, O, Jacobsson, CE, Widegren, M, Danylchenko, T, Jaffe, AS. Long-time quality assessment of the Elecsys Troponin T hs assay. Clin Biochem 2013;46:1055–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.03.022.Search in Google Scholar

10. Apple, FS, Jaffe, AS. Clinical implications of a recent adjustment to the high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay: user beware. Clin Chem 2012;58:1599–600. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.194985.Search in Google Scholar

11. Wildi, K, Twerenbold, R, Jaeger, C, Rubini Giménez, M, Reichlin, T, Stoll, M, et al.. Clinical impact of the 2010–2012 low-end shift of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2016;5:399–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872616642952.Search in Google Scholar

12. Solsvik, AE, Kristoffersen, AH, Sandberg, S, Gidske, G, Stavelin, AV, Eikeland, J, et al.. A national surveillance program for evaluating new reagent lots in medical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:351–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1262.Search in Google Scholar

13. Hickman, PE, Koerbin, G, Badrick, T, Oakman, C, Potter, JM. The importance of low level QC for high sensitivity troponin assays. Clin Biochem 2018;58:60–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.05.007.Search in Google Scholar

14. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. CLSI document EP26-A. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2013. User evaluation of between-reagent lot variation; Approved guideline.Search in Google Scholar

15. Liu, J, Tan, CH, Badrick, T, Loh, TP. Moving sum of number of positive patient result as a quality control tool. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1709–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0950.Search in Google Scholar

16. Liu, J, Tan, CH, Loh, TP, Badrick, T. Detecting long-term drift in reagent lots. Clin Chem 2015;61:1292–8. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.242511.Search in Google Scholar

17. Thompson, S, Chesher, D. Lot-to-Lot Variation. Clin Biochem Rev. 2018;39:51–60. PMC6223607.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. van Schrojenstein Lantman, M, Çubukçu, HC, Boursier, G, Panteghini, M, Bernabeu-Andreu, F, Milinković, N, et al.. An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:681–8.10.1515/cclm-2022-0083Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Stavelin, A, Riksheim, BO, Christensen, NG, Sandberg, S. The importance of reagent lot registration in external quality assurance/proficiency testing schemes. Clin Chem 2016;62:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.247585.Search in Google Scholar

20. van der Hagen, EAE, Weykamp, C, Sandberg, S, Stavelin, AV, MacKenzie, F, Miller, WG. Feasibility for aggregation of commutable external quality assessment results to evaluate metrological traceability and agreement among results. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:117–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0736.Search in Google Scholar

21. Miller, WG. Time to pay attention to reagent and calibrator lots for proficiency testing. Clin Chem 2016;62:666–7. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.255802.Search in Google Scholar

22. Badrick, T, Bietenbeck, A, Cervinski, MA, Katayev, A, van Rossum, HH, Loh, TP, et al.. Patient-based real-time quality control: review and recommendations. Clin Chem 2019;65:962–71. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2019.305482.Search in Google Scholar

23. Duan, X, Wang, B, Zhu, J, Zhang, C, Jiang, W, Zhou, J. Regression-adjusted real-time quality control. Clin Chem 2021;67:1342–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvab115.Search in Google Scholar

24. Goossens, K, Van Uytfanghe, K, Twomey, PJ, Thienpont, LM, Laboratories Participating. Monitoring laboratory data across manufacturers and laboratories—a prerequisite to make “Big Data” work. Clin Chim Acta 2015;445:12–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2015.03.003.Search in Google Scholar

25. De Grande, LAC, Goossens, K, Van Uytfanghe, K, Das, B, MacKenzie, F, Patru, MM, et al.. Monitoring the stability of the standardization status of FT4 and TSH assays by use of daily outpatient medians and flagging frequencies. Clin Chim Acta 2017;467:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2016.04.032.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-02-03
Accepted: 2022-02-09
Published Online: 2022-02-22
Published in Print: 2022-04-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston