English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The recent alignment of serum folate and vitamin B12 (B12) assays to the WHO International Standard (IS) code 03/178 has produced a significant shift in the average vitamin measured values and triggered studies on the reevaluation of reference intervals (RI) for both biomarkers [1–4]. This also yielded the opportunity to update recommendations about the cost-effective application of both tests and the interpretation of marker concentrations in serum [5, 6]. Authoritative guidelines, which define the risk for vitamin deficiency according to B12 and folate testing, indeed reported as interpretative criteria, RI estimated by using assays not traceable to the WHO IS 03/178 [7]. For both tests, cost-effectiveness is maximized when the request is applied to subjects at risk for deficiency and when the deficiency itself may represent a life-threatening condition or invalidate the treatment effect (e.g. in pregnant women or hemodialysis patients) [5, 6]. On the contrary, tests should not be ordered to monitor or evaluate the effect of vitamin supplementation. By applying these indications for an appropriate testing strategy, it was demonstrated an ~50% saving in laboratory costs, without compromising the patient safety [5, 6]. In general, for serum B12 the capability of the test to rule out the deficiency at the individual level is low when a single threshold value, such as the lower reference limit (LRL), is adopted. Multiple thresholds have been validated by clinical studies establishing the relationship between marker concentrations, the probability of deficiency and the need for supplementation [5]. Accordingly, the establishment of RI is not helpful for interpreting B12 concentrations in serum. Furthermore, the correct RI derivation by individual laboratories is very challenging because serum B12 levels are strongly conditioned by the selection criteria used to enrol the “apparently healthy” population, by some pre-analytical factors (e.g. time of sample drawing) and can be affected by many variables, such as dietary habit, vitamin supplements, use of the contraceptive pill, drugs, etc., which are sometimes difficult to control [5]. Thus, the experimental establishment of serum B12 RI by Solé-Enrech et al. [3], performed with the aim of improving the interpretation of vitamin concentrations in individuals suspected for deficiency, is of limited value. On the contrary, the evaluation of the inter-assay variability of B12 measurement at serum concentrations around the established thresholds for the risk of deficiency may be useful in indicating if these cut-offs may be generalized or require an adjustment according to the employed method. The more recently published data about the comparability among current B12 assays agree in showing a good concordance among the most widely used measuring systems, except for results by Beckman Coulter DxI Unicel that were negatively biased [8, 9]. Results from external quality assessment schemes (EQAS) can also aid to assess the current status of harmonization of B12 measurements. Data from the national Qualimedlab EQAS (www.qualimedlab.it) (2016–2018 exercises) for the four most popular assays (Abbott Architect, Beckman Coulter Access/Dx, Roche Modular/Elecsys/cobas and Siemens Advia Centaur) confirm the marked negative bias for Beckman Coulter systems (–22% in average), with other methods fulfilling the quality goal for desirable inter-assay bias (±17.7%) based on biological variation of B12 [9]. According to all these data, we can conclude that the harmonization of B12 results obtained by the commercially available measuring systems is currently acceptable enough, with few exceptions. For serum folate testing, a single threshold, set at LRL, is usually employed to screen for vitamin deficiency in non-fortified countries. Consequently, the prevalence of folate deficiency is strictly dependent from the correctness of cut-off establishment and from the accuracy of folate assays [6]. Data for the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) first showed that the actual prevalence of folate deficiency in the population may significantly shift with the reformulation of assays [10]. If tracing back calibration of commercial assays to a new reference material changes results, this may alter their relation to existing RI, with a consequent misleading test interpretation. This is exactly what happened with the introduction of WHO IS 03/178 as a calibrator of commercial systems, which caused a significant

clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine (cclm)

Folate and vitamin B12 assays after recalibration to the WHO International Standard 03/178: making the interpretation as simple as possible, but not simpler