METHODS: Haemoglobin variants were identified by HbA1c analysis in 93 of 3522 samples sent to our laboratory in a period of 1 month. Haemoglobin analysis identified HbE trait in 81 of 93 samples. To determine the influence of HbE trait on HbA1c analysis by Variant II Tubo 2.0, boronate affinity high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (Primus PDQ) was used as the comparison method. Two stage linear regression analysis, Bland Altman plot and Deming regression analysis were performed to analyse whether the presence of HbE trait produced a statistically significant difference in the results. The total allowable error for HbA1c by the Royal Australasian College of Pathologists (RCPA) external quality assurance is 5%. Hence clinically significant difference is more than 5% at the medical decision level of 6% and 9%.

RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant higher results were observed in Variant II Turbo 2.0 due to the presence of HbE trait. A positive bias of ∼10% was observed at the medical decision levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to hospital laboratories in Malaysia (n=140). Questions regarding methods for measuring creatinine, equations for calculating eGFR, eGFR reporting, the terminology used in reporting urine albumin, types of samples and the cut-off values used for normal albuminuria.

RESULTS: A total of 42/140 (30%) laboratories answered the questionnaire. The prevalent method used for serum creatinine measurement was the Jaffé method (88.1%) traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. eGFR was reported along with serum creatinine by 61.9% of laboratories while 33.3% of laboratories report eGFR on request. The formula used for eGFR reporting was mainly MDRD (64.3%) and results were reported as exact numbers even when the eGFR was <60 ml/min/1.73m2. The term microalbumin is still used by 83.3% of laboratories. There is a large heterogeneity among the labs regarding the type of sample recommended for measuring urine albumin, reference interval and reporting units.

Methods: This study included patients with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) diagnosed between November 2012 and October 2015. Serum cathepsin D levels were measured using the CatD enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (USCN Life Science, Wuhan, China) using stored samples collected on the same day of the liver biopsy procedure. The performance of cathepsin D in the diagnosis and monitoring of NASH was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Results: Data for 216 liver biopsies and 34 healthy controls were analyzed. The mean cathepsin D level was not significantly different between NAFLD patients and controls; between NASH and non-NASH patients; and across the different steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning grades. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of cathepsin D for the diagnosis of NAFLD and NASH was 0.62 and 0.52, respectively. The AUROC of cathepsin D for the diagnosis of the different steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning grades ranged from 0.51 to 0.58. Of the 216 liver biopsies, 152 were paired liver biopsies from 76 patients who had a repeat liver biopsy after 48 weeks. There was no significant change in the cathepsin D level at follow-up compared to baseline in patients who had histological improvement or worsening for steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning grades. Cathepsin D was poor for predicting improvement or worsening of steatosis and hepatocyte ballooning, with AUROC ranging from 0.47 to 0.54. It was fair for predicting worsening (AUROC 0.73) but poor for predicting improvement (AUROC 0.54) of lobular inflammation.

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of MACK-3 for the diagnosis of fibrotic NASH.

METHODOLOGY: Consecutive adult non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients who had liver biopsy in a university hospital were included. MACK-3 was calculated using the online calculator using the following variables: fasting glucose, fasting insulin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and cytokeratin 18 (CK18). MACK-3 cut-offs ≤0.134 and ≥0.550 were used to predict absence and presence of fibrotic NASH, respectively. Histopathological examination of liver biopsy specimen was reported according to the NASH Clinical Research Network Scoring System.

RESULTS: Data for 196 subjects were analysed. MACK-3 was good for diagnosis of fibrotic NASH (area under receiver-operating characteristics curve [AUROC] 0.80), comparable to the Fibrosis-4 index (FIB4) and the NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) and superior to the BARD score and CK18. MACK-3 was good for diagnosis of active NASH (AUROC 0.81) and was superior to other blood fibrosis tests. The overall accuracy, percentage of subjects in grey zone, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MACK-3 for diagnosis of fibrotic NASH was 79.1%, 46.9%, 100%, 43.8%, 43.1% and 100%, respectively, while for diagnosis of active NASH was 90.0%, 39.3%, 84.2%, 81.4%, 88.9% and 74.5%, respectively.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study on NAFLD patients who had a liver biopsy and LSM on the same day. The diagnostic performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS: The data for 196 patients were analyzed (mean age 50 ± 11 years old, 50% men, 56.6% Malay, 27.6% Chinese, 15.8% Indian, 67.9% NASH, 15.8% advanced liver fibrosis). The AUROC of Hepamet fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 - 0.91). Using the <0.12 and ≥0.47 cut-offs from the original study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, the proportion of indeterminate results and misclassification rate were 81.8%, 91.8%, 47.4%, 98.2%, 32.1% and 6.1%, respectively. Using LSM <10 kPa and ≥15 kPa for the diagnosis of absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively, in patients with Hepamet fibrosis score ≥0.47 (i.e., the two-step approach) reduced indeterminate results and misclassification to 16.1% and 3.6%, respectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the extent of variation in reporting of protein electrophoresis results questionnaires were distributed to the pathologists of various laboratories in Malaysia regarding the method, quantification of paraprotein concentrations and immunoglobulin assays, and information regarding current laboratory electrophoresis practices.

RESULTS: Variation was found in the following reporting practices: (a) screening protocol; (b) reporting of serum albumin; (c) numerical reporting of protein fractions and paraprotein; (d) co-migration of a paraprotein with a normal serum protein; (e) reporting of multiple paraprotein bands (f) appearance of small abnormal band and oligoclonal bands and (g) communication about of interferences.