Volume 60, Issue 5

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on screening, surveillance, and treatment of several diseases recommend the selective use of biomarkers with central role in clinical decision-making and move towards including patients in this process. To this aim we will clarify the multidisciplinary interactions required to properly measure the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers with regard to the risk-benefit of the patients and how Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach may assess value of biomarkers integrated within the decision-making process. HTA through the interaction of different skills provides high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs, and impact of health technologies, including biomarkers. The biostatistical methodology is relevant to HTA but only meta-analysis is covered in depth, whereas proper approaches are needed to estimate the benefit-risk balance ratio. Several biomarkers underwent HTA evaluation and the final reports have pragmatically addressed: 1) a redesign of the screening based on biomarker; 2) a de-implementation/replacement of the test in clinical practice; 3) a selection of biomarkers with potential predictive ability and prognostic value; and 4) a stronger monitoring of the appropriateness of test request. The COVID-19 pandemic has disclosed the need to create a robust and sustainable system to urgently deal with global health concerns and the HTA methodology enables rapid cost-effective implementation of diagnostic tests allowing healthcare providers to make critical patient-management decisions.

Objectives Among the diagnostic tests that have recently become commercially available for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the fully-automated Roche Elecsys severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) is one of the most widespread for its adaptability within a system of laboratory automation, rapidity and high-throughput. This article is aimed to provide the results of the first pooled analysis of its accuracy for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Content We carried out an electronic search in Scopus and Medline, without language or date restrictions (i.e., up to January 18, 2022), to identify articles where the diagnostic performance of Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA was compared with that of reference molecular diagnostic techniques. Summary Overall, 11 studies were identified, 10 of which (n=6,095 swabs) provided necessary data for inclusion in a pooled analysis. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) in nasopharyngeal samples were 0.68 (95%CI, 0.66–0.70), 0.99 (95%CI, 0.99–0.99) and 0.958 (95%CI, 0.936–0.980), respectively. The cumulative observed agreement with reference molecular assays was 89.5% and the kappa statistic was 0.735 (95%CI, 0.716–0.754). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in samples with high viral load (i.e., cycle threshold values <28–30) was 0.95 (95%CI, 0.92–0.97). Outlook The results of this pooled analysis confirm that the fully-automated Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen ECLIA has high diagnostic specificity and optimal diagnostic sensitivity for identifying nasopharyngeal samples with higher viral load, thus making it a reliable technique for mass screening and for supporting strategies based on shorten isolation and/or quarantine.

Since the beginning of laboratory medicine, the main focus was to provide high quality analytics. Over time the importance of the extra-analytical phases and their contribution to the overall quality became evident. However, as the initial preanalytical processes take place outside of the laboratory and mostly without its supervision, all professions participating in these process steps, from test selection to sample collection and transport, need to engage accordingly. Focusing solely on intra-laboratory processes will not be sufficient to achieve the best possible preanalytical quality. The Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has provided several recommendations, opinion papers and scientific evidence over the past years, aiming to standardize the preanalytical phase across Europe. One of its strategies to reach this goal are educational efforts. As such, the WG-PRE has organized five conferences in the past decade with the sole focus on preanalytical quality. This year’s conference mainly aims to depict the views of different professions on preanalytical processes in order to acquire common ground as basis for further improvements. This article summarizes the content of this 6th preanalytical conference.

The role of an External Quality Assurance (EQA) program is generally seen as providing a service to routine laboratories that their analytical performance is satisfactory and stimulating corrective action in the event of poor results. It is recognised that an ideal EQA program uses materials that are commutable with patient samples and have values assigned by higher-order reference methods. Despite this, most routine EQA programs use materials without verified commutability and use consensus means (based on either peer group or all laboratories) as target values. We propose an ongoing role for EQA programs using non-commutable materials and consensus targets to support the measurement services of routine laboratories. This is provided the relevant comparators supplied by the laboratory, e.g. reference intervals and clinical decision points, are based on the same or equivalent measurement system as is used by the laboratory. Materials without verified commutability often have certain practical advantages, which may include the range of analyte concentrations, verified stability, replicate samples and, significantly, lower costs. Laboratories using such programs need to be aware of the limitations, especially comparing results from different measurement systems. However, we also recognise that as well as individual laboratories, data from EQA programs informs manufacturers, professional organisations, clinical guideline writers and other medical bodies For consideration beyond an individual laboratory, proper assessment of differences between measurement systems (results harmonization) and demonstration of correct implementation of metrological traceability (methods trueness) become vital, and for that purpose, commutability of EQA materials and traceability of target values are required.

Lot-to-lot verification is an important laboratory activity that is performed to monitor the consistency of analytical performance over time. In this opinion paper, the concept, clinical impact, challenges and potential solutions for lot-to-lot verification are exained.

Clinicians trust medical laboratories to provide reliable results on which they rely for clinical decisions. Laboratories fulfil their responsibility for accurate and consistent results by utilizing an arsenal of approaches, ranging from validation and verification experiments to daily quality control procedures. All these procedures verify, on different moments, that the results of a certain examination procedure have analytical performance characteristics (APC) that meet analytical performance specifications (APS) set for a particular intended use. The APC can in part be determined by estimating the measurement uncertainty component under conditions of within-laboratory precision ( u Rw ), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence u Rw is the momentary significant bias caused by shifts in reagent and/or calibrator lots, which, when accepted or unnoticed, become a factor of the APC. In this paper, we postulate a model for allocating a part of allowable u Rw to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots.

Objectives The use of BD Vacutainer ® Barricor™ tubes (BAR) can reduce turnaround time (TAT) and improve separation of plasma from cellular components using a specific mechanical separator. Concentrations of amino acids (AAs) and cytokines, known to be labile during pre-analytical time delays, were compared in heparin (BAR, BD Heparin standard tube [PST]), EDTA and serum gel tubes (SER) to validate previously identified quality indicators (QIs) in BAR. Methods Samples of healthy individuals (n=10) were collected in heparin, EDTA and SER tubes and exposed to varying pre- and post-centrifugation delays at room temperature (RT). Cytokines (interleukin [IL]-8, IL-16 and sCD40L) were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and AAs were characterized by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results All QIs, AAs/AA ratio and cytokines increased during prolonged blood storage in heparin plasma (PST, BAR) and SER tubes. Comparison of 53 h/1 h pre-centrifugation delay resulted in an increase in taurine (Tau) and glutamic acid (Glu) concentrations by more than three times, soluble CD40L increased by 13.6, 9.2 and 4.3 fold in PST, BAR-CTRL and BAR-FAST, and IL-8 increased even more by 112.8 (PST), 266.1 (BAR-CTRL), 268.1 (BAR-FAST) and 70.0 (SER) fold, respectively. Overall, compared to prolonged blood storage, effects of post-centrifugation delays were less pronounced in all tested materials. Conclusions BAR tubes are compatible with the use of several established QIs and can therefore be used in clinical biobanking to reduce pre-analytical TAT without compromising QIs and thus pre-analytical sample quality analysis.

Objectives Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are a versatile material for clinical routine as well as for research projects. However, their isolation via density gradient centrifugation is still time-consuming. When samples are taken beyond usual laboratory handling times, it may sometimes be necessary to pause the isolation process. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of delays up to 48 h after the density gradient centrifugation on PBMC yield, purity and viability. Methods PBMCs were isolated from samples of 20 donors, either with BD Vacutainer CPT tubes (CPT) or with the standard Ficoll method. Isolation was paused after initial density gradient centrifugation for 0, 24, or 48 h. PBMC yield (% output/input), purity (% PBMCs/total cells) and viability (% Annexin V-/propidium iodide-) were compared. Results The yield did not change significantly over time when CPT were used (55%/52%/47%), but did after isolation with the standard method (62%/40%[p<0.0001]/53%[p<0.01]). Purity was marginally affected if CPT were used (95%/93%[p=n.s./92%[p<0.05] vs. 97% for all time points with standard method). Whereas viable PBMCs decreased steadily for CPT isolates (62%/51%[p<0.001]/36%[p<0.0001]), after standard Ficoll gradient isolation, cell apoptosis was more pronounced already after 24 h delay, and viability did not further decrease after 48 h (64%/44%[p<0.0001]/40%[p<0.0001]). Conclusions In conclusion, our findings suggest that while post-centrifugation delays ≥24 h might have only a minor effect on cell yield and purity, their impact on cell viability is substantial, even when CPT are used.

Objectives Academics are far from a consensus regarding the effects of pneumatic tube system (PTS) delivery on sample integrity and laboratory test results. As for the reasons for conflicting opinions, each PTS is uniquely designed, sample tubes and patient characteristics differ among studies. This study aims to validate the PTS utilized in Ankara City Hospital for routine chemistry, coagulation, and hematology tests by comparing samples delivered via PTS and porter. Methods The study comprises 50 healthy volunteers. Blood samples were drawn into three biochemistry, two coagulation, and two hemogram tubes from each participant. Each of the duplicate samples was transferred to the emergency laboratory via Swiss log PTS (aka PTS-immediately) or by a porter. The last of the biochemistry tubes were delivered via the PTS, upon completion of coagulation of the blood (aka PTS-after). The results of the analysis in these groups were compared with multiple statistical analyses. Results The study did not reveal any correlation between the PTS and serum hemolysis index. There were statistically significant differences in several biochemistry tests. However, none of them reached the clinical significance threshold. Basophil and large unidentified cell (LUC) tests had poor correlations (r=0.47 and r=0.60; respectively) and reached clinical significance threshold (the average percentages of bias, 10.2%, and 15.4%, respectively). The remainder of the hematology and coagulation parameters did not reach clinical significance level either. Conclusions The modern PTS validated in this study is safe for sample transportation for routine chemistry, coagulation, and hematology tests frequently requested in healthy individuals except for basophil and LUC.

Objectives Hemolysis is associated with erroneous or delayed results. Objectives of the study were to compare four different methods for obtaining hemolysis in vitro on three different analyzers. Methods Hemolysis was prepared with addition of pure hemoglobin into serum pool, osmotic shock, aspiration through blood collection needle, freezing/thawing of whole blood. Biochemistry parameters were measured in duplicate at Architect c8000 (Abbott, Abbott Park, USA), Beckman Coulter AU680 (Beckman Coulter, Brea, USA) and Cobas 6000 c501 (Roche, Mannheim, Germany), according to manufacturers’ declarations. Cut-off value was defined as the highest value of H index with corresponding bias lower than acceptance criteria. Results We were not able to obtain results with freezing protocol. On all three platforms, lowest number of analytes were sensitive to hemolysis at H=0.5 using method of adding free hemoglobin. When osmotic shock was used, cut-off values for the most analytes were generally met at lower values. Hemolysis significantly interfered with measurement of potassium and lactate dehydrogenase (LD) at H=0.5 on all platforms. The most of the tested analytes had the lowest acceptable H index when aspiration method was used. At the low level of hemolysis (H=0.8) glucose, sodium, potassium, chloride, phosphate, and LD were affected on all analyzers, with some additional analytes depending on the manufacturer. Conclusions Hemolysis interference differs on different analyzers and according to protocol for obtaining hemolysis. Aspiration method was generally the most sensitive to hemolysis interference, while addition of free Hb was the most resistant.

Objectives Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is recommended for measuring circulating steroids. However, assays display technical heterogeneity. So far, reproducibility of corticosteroid LC-MS/MS measurements has received scant attention. The aim of the study was to compare LC-MS/MS measurements of cortisol, 17OH-progesterone and aldosterone from nine European centers and assess performance according to external quality assessment (EQA) materials and calibration. Methods Seventy-eight patient samples, EQA materials and two commercial calibration sets were measured twice by laboratory-specific procedures. Results were obtained by in-house (CAL1) and external calibrations (CAL2 and CAL3). We evaluated intra and inter-laboratory imprecision, correlation and agreement in patient samples, and trueness, bias and commutability in EQA materials. Results Using CAL1, intra-laboratory CVs ranged between 2.8–7.4%, 4.4–18.0% and 5.2–22.2%, for cortisol, 17OH-progesterone and aldosterone, respectively. Trueness and bias in EQA materials were mostly acceptable, however, inappropriate commutability and target value assignment were highlighted in some cases. CAL2 showed suboptimal accuracy. Median inter-laboratory CVs for cortisol, 17OH-progesterone and aldosterone were 4.9, 11.8 and 13.8% with CAL1 and 3.6, 10.3 and 8.6% with CAL3 (all p<0.001), respectively. Using CAL1, median bias vs. all laboratory-medians ranged from −6.6 to 6.9%, −17.2 to 7.8% and −12.0 to 16.8% for cortisol, 17OH-progesterone and aldosterone, respectively. Regression lines significantly deviated from the best fit for most laboratories. Using CAL3 improved cortisol and 17OH-progesterone between-method bias and correlation. Conclusions Intra-laboratory imprecision and performance with EQA materials were variable. Inter-laboratory performance was mostly within specifications. Although residual variability persists, adopting common traceable calibrators and RMP-determined EQA materials is beneficial for standardization of LC-MS/MS steroid measurements.

Objectives Internal quality control (IQC) plays an important role in quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, there is no universal consensus or guideline on when and how IQC should be analyzed on point-of-care testing (POCT) devices. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to determine how often IQC should be analyzed in primary healthcare on the various POCT devices. Methods Based on a systematic literature review and a thorough process involving the whole Noklus, a nationwide POC organization, a scoring system for when to analyze IQC was developed. Four factors were considered to significantly impact IQC frequency: The importance of the analyte in diagnosing and monitoring patients, type of POCT device, user-friendliness, and number of patient samples. For each POCT device, the first three factors were given a score, and the sum of the scores determined the general recommended IQC frequency. The number of patient samples determined whether and how to adjust these frequencies in each individual general practice. Results The scoring system was applied to 17 analytes and 134 different POCT devices (153 analyte-device combinations). Most of the devices analyzing high-risk analytes (71 out of 74) obtained daily or weekly IQC frequency. For example, all blood-cell counters and all glucose meters should undergo IQC daily and weekly, respectively. Conclusions This study presents a consensus-based scoring system for differentiated and device-specific recommendations for IQC frequency on POCT devices in primary healthcare. The scoring system can easily be adopted to other local environments and is easy to use.

Objectives Platelet clumps present in anticoagulant specimens may generate a falsely decreased platelet count and lead to an incorrect diagnosis. A clear understanding of the ability of a haematology analyser (HA) to detect platelet clumps is important for routine work in the clinical laboratory. Methods Citrate-anticoagulated whole-blood samples were collected from various patients as a negative group. Adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation was performed on those negative samples to mimic platelet-clump-containing (positive) samples. The ‘platelet clumps’ and ‘platelet abnormal’ flags generated by the Sysmex XN-10 instrument were used to assess the flagging performance of this HA and demonstrate its flagging features. The complete blood count (CBC) results of paired negative and positive samples were compared to evaluate the impact of platelet clumps on the CBC parameters. Results A total of 187 samples were eligible for this study. The total accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the platelet clumps flag were 0.786, 0.626, and 0.947, respectively. The total accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the platelet abnormal flag were 0.631, 0.348, and 0.914, respectively. A separate assessment focusing on the positive samples with low platelet counts showed that the total sensitivities of the platelet clumps and platelet abnormal flags were 0.801 and 1.000, respectively. Platelet clumps may interfere with the leukocyte count and with platelet and erythrocyte indices. Conclusions Platelet clumps can influence not only platelet indices but also leukocyte and erythrocyte counts. The Sysmex XN-10 instrument is sensitive to positive samples with low platelet counts but insensitive to those with high platelet counts.

Objectives International guidelines recommend fixed cut-off values for thyroglobulin (Tg). These cut-offs do not take potential assay differences into account. This study aimed to evaluate if different assays for Tg and Tg antibodies (TgAb) affect management guidance for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients. Methods In 793 samples derived from 413 patients with DTC, Tg and TgAb were simultaneously measured with two immunometric assays: Immulite 2000XPi and Kryptor compact plus . In addition, a qualitative measurement for TgAb interference (recovery test) was performed on the Kryptor compact plus platform. The extent to which different assays lead to different classifications of response to therapy was evaluated when applying the current cut-offs for Tg. Results Mean Tg concentrations were 37.4% lower with Kryptor as compared with Immulite . Applying guideline based cut-off values for Tg, 33 (4.7%) samples had a Tg-on concentration ≥1.0 μg/L with Immulite and <1.0 μg/L with Kryptor . Of the samples tested as TgAb+ with at least one assay (n=125), 68 (54.4%) samples showed discrepancy in TgAb status. Differences between Immulite and Kryptor measurements resulted in a change in the response to therapy classification in 94 (12.0%) measurements derived from 67 (16.2%) individual patients. Conclusions A substantial portion of DTC patients were classified differently dependent on which Tg and TgAb assays are used, when applying the cut-off values as defined in clinical guidelines. Such differences can significantly affect clinical management. In the context of large between-method variation, the recommended Tg cut-offs in guidelines should be used with wisdom rather than as fixed cut-offs.

Objectives The reliable identification of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone for containing viral spread. Rapid molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) of saliva might reduce analysis time, thus increasing the efficacy of contact tracing. In this study, a new POCT RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was evaluated and compared with an already validated CE-IVD method. Methods An evaluation was made of 160 left-over salivary samples (27 frozen, kept at −80 °C and 133 fresh), collected using Salivette (Sarstedt, Germany). Samples were analyzed by TaqPath COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR kit, QuantStudio5 Real-Time (Applied Biosystems, USA) (TaqPath) and bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva (Hyris Global Diagnostics, Italy). Performances of three- and fivefold pooling strategies were also evaluated. Blood assay interference in saliva was also tested with Hyris. Results On using TaqPath, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was detected in 35 samples. Another 10 positive samples were artificially-generated by blind mixing of positive with negative samples. Hyris positive and negative percentages of agreement were 97.6 (95% CI: 87.2–99.9%) and 100 (95% CI: 97.0–100%), respectively. Seventeen positive pools, evaluated for threefold strategy, were all correctly determined by both systems. For the 5-pool strategy, 94.7% (18/19) of samples resulted positive with the Hyris system, and 100% with TaqPath. The presence of 1% of blood (v/v) in saliva did not interfere with the accuracy of Hyris assay. Conclusions The sensitivity and specificity of the bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva were optimal with respect to TaqPath. In view of the safe and straightforward pre-analytical procedure involved, and the small size of the Hyris bCube, the Hyris system can be used for POCT.

Objectives Widespread SARS-CoV-2 testing is invaluable for identifying asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic individuals. There remains a technological gap for highly reliable, easy, and quick SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests suitable for frequent mass testing. Compared to nasopharyngeal (NP) swab-based tests, saliva-based methods are attractive due to easier and safer sampling. Current saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are hindered by limited analytical sensitivity. Here, we report one of the first ultrasensitive, saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays with an analytical sensitivity of <0.32 pg/mL, corresponding to four viral RNA copies/µL, which is comparable to that of PCR-based tests. Methods Using the novel electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based immunoassay, we measured the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen concentration in 105 salivas, obtained from non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. We then verified the results with a second, independent cohort of 689 patients (3.8% SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate). We also compared our method with a widely used point-of-care rapid test. Results In the first cohort, at 100% specificity, the sensitivity was 92%. Our assay correctly identified samples with viral loads up to 35 CT cycles by saliva-based PCR. Paired NP swab-based PCR results were obtained for 86 cases. Our assay showed high concordance with saliva-based and NP swab-based PCR in samples with negative (<0.32 pg/mL) and strongly positive (>2 pg/mL) N antigen concentrations. In the second cohort, at 100% specificity, sensitivity was also 92%. Our assay is about 700-fold more sensitive than the Abbott Panbio Rapid Test. Conclusions We demonstrated the ultrasensitivity and specificity assay and its concordance with PCR. This novel assay is especially valuable when compliance to frequent swabbing may be problematic.

Objectives Rapid antigen tests (RAT) can provide valuable information on the presence or absence SARS-CoV-2 within 15 min without the need of a laboratory. The analytical and diagnostic characteristics of available RATs has led to the question whether they can safely distinguish between infectious and non-infectious patients in an acute care setting. Methods Three nasopharyngeal swabs for the analysis by RAT, reverse transcriptase real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), and a cell culture based infection assay were collected from 67 patients that presented to the emergency department of the University Hospital of Graz (Austria). The first swab was used for on-site RAT testing in the emergency department using the Roche SARS-CoV-2 RAT. The second swab was sent to the central laboratory of the hospital for RT-qPCR with two independent methods (Cepheid Xpert ® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 Test) and repeat RAT testing using the same commercial test. With the third swab a cell culture-based infection assay was performed. Results The RATs performed from independent samples showed substantial agreement (Cohen’s-kappa: 0.73, p<0.001). All patients with a positive RAT had positive RT-qPCR with cycle threshold (ct) values <25. Fifteen out of 55 RAT-negative samples were RT-qPCR positive with ct values between 25 and 40. The inoculation of cell cultures with RT-qPCR negative swabs and RT-qPCR positive swabs with ct values >25 did not induce cytopathic effects that were related to SARS-CoV-2. The infection assays from four RAT-negative patients showed cytopathic effects that were induced by other pathogens. Conclusions The SARS-CoV-2 RAT from Roche Diagnostics is a valuable tool for managing symptomatic patients. RAT-negative patients may be regarded as non-contagious.

Objectives Monocyte distribution has recently emerged as a promising biomarker of sepsis, especially in acute setting, such as Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of monocyte distribution width (MDW) for early detecting patients with sepsis by performing a systemic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Methods Relevant publications were identified by a systematic literature search on PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to September 07, 2021. Studies were divided into two groups based on the sepsis criteria applied, namely sepsis-2 or sepsis-3. Results Ten studies including 9,475 individuals, of whom 1,370 with sepsis (742 according Sepsis-2 and 628 according to Sepsis-3), met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.789 and 0.777 for Sepsis-2 criteria, 0.838 and 0.704 for Sepsis-3 criteria. Conclusions MDW represents a reliable biomarker for sepsis screening.

Objectives Standard of care sepsis biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) can be affected by several perinatal factors, among which perinatal asphyxia (PA) has a significant role. In this light, new early sepsis biomarkers such as presepsin (P-SEP) are needed to enact therapeutic strategies at a stage when clinical and laboratory patterns are still silent or unavailable. We aimed at investigating the potential effects of PA on longitudinal P-SEP urine levels. Methods We conducted an observational case-control study in 76 term infants, 38 with PA and 38 controls. Standard clinical, laboratory, radiological monitoring procedures and P-SEP urine measurement were performed at four time-points (first void, 24, 48, 96 h) after birth. Results Higher (p<0.05) CRP and PCT blood levels at T1–T3 were observed in PA than control infants whilst no differences (p>0.05, for all) at T0 were observed between groups. P-SEP urine levels were higher (p<0.05) in PA at first void and at 24 h while no differences (p>0.05) at 48 and 96 h were observed. No significant correlations were found (p>0.05) between P-SEP and urea (R=0.11) and creatinine (R=0.02) blood levels, respectively. Conclusions The present results, showed that PA effects on P-SEP were limited up to the first 24 h following birth in absence of any kidney function bias. Data open the way to further investigations aimed at validating P-SEP assessment in non-invasive biological fluids as a reliable tool for early EOS and LOS detection in high-risk infants.