Dataset Information

Survey of renin and aldosterone testing practices by Ontario laboratories - Providing insight into best practices.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Testing for renin and aldosterone in clinical laboratories is complicated by pre-analytical considerations such as the posture for blood collection and susceptibility to cryoactivation of renin. From an analytical perspective, there are both renin activity and renin mass or concentration assays available. There can also be variability in result reporting practices and the aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR) cut-off applied to screen for primary aldosteronism (PA). The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) Centre for Proficiency Testing surveyed laboratories on their handling of renin and aldosterone testing to better understand current practices.

Design and methods

An online survey was prepared and sent to 134 Canadian laboratories enrolled in endocrinology proficiency testing with IQMH.

Results

One hundred twenty Ontario laboratories submitted responses. While only six (5%) laboratories perform testing for both renin and aldosterone, 108 (90%) collect and process specimens to be tested by reference laboratories. The survey revealed considerable variation in practices including the recommended state of patients prior to sample collection (for example, regarding medications or salt intake), the patient posture specifications for sample collection, the precautions taken against cryoactivation of renin, the choice of renin activity or mass assay, and the ARR cut-off used. The available literature on these factors was then reviewed.

Conclusions

Although there is no standardized procedure for specimen collection, analysis, or result reporting for renin or aldosterone testing, we have attempted to summarize the available literature to develop evidence-based recommendations. Where laboratory practice differs from peers and/or recommended protocols, laboratories should review their practices.

SUBMITTER: Rutledge AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8145751 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMolecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.Results54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% - 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% - 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% - 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% - 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% - 43%).ConclusionPhysicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.