Home >> ALL ISSUES >> 2017 Issues >> DIY or Survey? Identifying interfering substances

DIY or Survey? Identifying interfering substances

image_pdfCreate PDF

Anne Ford

October 2017—The interfering substance: Whether it’s in-laws on your doorstep or lipemia in your specimen, it has to be addressed. Ask Michelle K. Zimmerman, MD.

These days, Dr. Zimmerman uses the CAP Interfering Substance Survey to detect the presence of hemolysis, lipemia, and icterus in clinical chemistry samples at Indiana University School of Medicine, where she is an assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine. But before her laboratory started using the Survey, how did it handle those interferences?

“I think we pretended they weren’t there,” she quips, then adds: “The machine still gave us hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia numbers, and we still appended comments about them [to laboratory reports]. But now we have better proof.”

Dr. Zimmerman’s laboratory is one of many subscribers to the CAP Survey, which helps determine the susceptibility of individual analytical methods to the commonly encountered interferents hemolysis, lipemia, and icterus. The Survey, which has been around for several years, now features improved precision for lipemia. That’s just one benefit.

“I run into situations where phlebotomy keeps trying to draw a patient who’s a difficult stick, or for some other reason we can’t get a sample that has no hemolysis in it,” says Lauren Pearson, DO, MPH, a resident in pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Vermont Medical Center and vice chair of the CAP Instrumentation Committee. “In that type of situation, it may still be important for the clinical team to have the potassium level, for example. So it’s nice to be able to counsel them: ‘Here’s how much we think the result is affected by the hemolysis.’”

Of course, laboratories can examine the susceptibility of their tests to interferents by also using patient samples known to have high concentrations of, say, bilirubin or hemoglobin and to run a paired difference study with those samples.

“We’re giving labs information that would be more labor intensive to obtain on their own,” she says. “For example, if a lab designs its own experiment to examine interferences, it has to replicate testing on spiked samples to get information about its assay precision. In addition, the lab would have to perform its own statistical analysis to get an idea of the magnitude of the effects of the particular interfering substance on the patient test results.” In the evaluation package for subscribers, the laboratory is provided with a mathematical equation and a graphical representation of exactly how much that interfering substance affected the accuracy of the result.

For 2018, the Survey price is $562 for 23 analytes. “It may be cheaper to spike an appropriate matrix with a patient sample that’s known to have a high level of interferent,” Dr. Pearson says. “But because you’re just taking samples you already have, there are two issues. No. 1, you don’t know if there could be more than one interferent in that sample. No. 2, if you choose to do your own in-house experiment, you’ve got to have a tech who’s going to design the experiment, who’s going to do the manual work to set up samples and then run the test, and then on the other end, do the analysis. Tech time is really expensive.”

Dr. Pearson

Dr. Pearson

With the Survey, she continues, “the samples show up at the lab and it is less labor intensive to prepare and run them. And then there isn’t a lot of technical expertise needed to interpret the results because you get a nicely generated report with both tables and graphs explaining what your results are. So it’s a convenience thing, but also, if you calculate what you would have to pay a tech to do that, the expense of subscribing to the Survey is not as great as some labs perceive.”

Then, too, the Survey can help laboratories satisfy CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements COM.40450 and COM.40500, which state, respectively: “For modified FDA-cleared/approved tests or laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), the results of each validation study include a sufficient number of samples to establish the test’s analytical specificity” and “The laboratory understands the analytical interferences for each test, and has an appropriate plan of action when they are present.”

The Survey differs in some ways from a standard proficiency test Survey, which entails three mailings a year. “This is a service-based product,” explains CAP senior biostatistician Rhona Souers. “So at the beginning of the year, if a customer orders the product, they receive the kit and they can submit it at any time.” For example, laboratories undergoing instrumentation changes can submit their results after the new instrumentation is implemented, and laboratories that need to run an interference study for internal testing can submit their results toward the end of the year.

Once the CAP receives the results, they are typically processed within two weeks. “If a laboratory has additional material left over, if there are some results we need to reprocess, we would generate a revision for a specific analyte,” Souers says. Peer group summary statistics are provided periodically so a laboratory can compare its results to those of other laboratories using the same instruments. “Let’s say you’re detecting bilirubin interference at 20 mg/dL, but you see that 80 percent of your peer group isn’t detecting any interference. That would be useful information you may want to investigate,” Souers says.

CAP TODAY
X