Evaluation of a Common Internal Standard Material to Reduce Inter-Laboratory Variation and Ensure the Quality, Safety and Efficacy of Expanded Newborn Screening Results When Using Flow Injection Analysis Tandem Mass Spectrometry with Internal Calibration

• Published in: International journal of neonatal screening 2020-11, Vol.6 (4), p.92
• Main Authors: Carling, Rachel S., John, Catharine, Goddard, Philippa, Griffith, Caroline, Cowen, Simon, Hopley, Christopher, Moat, Stuart J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: dried blood spots; expanded screening; flow injection analysis tandem mass spectrometry; inter-laboratory variation; internal calibration; isotope dilution
• ISSN: 2409-515X; 2409-515X
• DOI: 10.3390/ijns6040092

In 2015, the newborn screening (NBS) programmes in England and Wales were expanded to include four additional disorders: Classical Homocystinuria, Isovaleric Acidemia, Glutaric Aciduria Type 1 and Maple Syrup Urine Disease, bringing the total number of analytes quantified to eight: phenylalanine, tyrosine, leucine, methionine, isovalerylcarnitine, glutarylcarnitine, octanoylcarnitine and decanoylcarnitine. Post-implementation, population data monitoring showed that inter-laboratory variation was greater than expected, with 90th centiles varying from 17% to 59%. We evaluated the effect of stable isotope internal standard (IS) used for quantitation on inter-laboratory variation. Four laboratories analysed routine screening samples (n > 101,820) using a common IS. Inter-laboratory variation was determined for the eight analytes and compared with results obtained using an in-house common IS (n > 102,194). A linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the data. Using a common IS mix reduced the inter-laboratory variation significantly (p < 0.05) for five analytes. For three analytes, the lack of significance was explained by use of individual laboratory “calibration factors”. For screening programmes where laboratories adhere to single analyte cut-off values (COVs), it is important that inter-laboratory variation is minimised, primarily to prevent false positive results. Whilst the use of a common IS helps achieve this, it is evident that instrument set-up also contributes to inter-laboratory variation.