Local inflammation is thought to contribute to the progression of diabetic nephropathy. The vitamin D receptor (VDR) activator paricalcitol has an antiproteinuric effect in human diabetic nephropathy at high doses. We have explored potential anti-inflammatory effects of VDR activator doses that do not modulate proteinuria in an experimental model of diabetic nephropathy to gain insights into potential benefits of VDR activators in those patients whose proteinuria is not decreased by this therapy. The effect of calcitriol and paricalcitol on renal function, albuminuria, and renal inflammation was explored in a rat experimental model of diabetes induced by streptozotocin. Modulation of the expression of mediators of inflammation by these drugs was explored in cultured podocytes. At the doses used, neither calcitriol nor paricalcitol significantly modified renal function or reduced albuminuria in experimental diabetes. However, both drugs reduced the total kidney mRNA expression of IL-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, and IL-18. Immunohistochemistry showed that calcitriol and paricalcitol reduced MCP-1 and IL-6 in podocytes and tubular cells as well as glomerular infiltration by macrophages, glomerular cell NF-κB activation, apoptosis, and extracellular matrix deposition. In cultured podocytes, paricalcitol and calcitriol at concentrations in the physiological and clinically significant range prevented the increase in MCP-1, IL-6, renin, and fibronectin mRNA expression and the secretion of MCP-1 to the culture media induced by high glucose. In conclusion, in experimental diabetic nephropathy VDR activation has local renal anti-inflammatory effects that can be observed even when proteinuria is not decreased. This may be ascribed to decreased inflammatory responses of intrinsic renal cells, including podocytes, to high glucose.

Quality indicators (QIs) are fundamental tools for enabling users to quantify the quality of all operational processes by comparing it against a defined criterion. QIs data should be collected over time to identify, correct, and continuously monitor defects and improve performance and patient safety by identifying and implementing effective interventions. According to the international standard for medical laboratories accreditation, the laboratory shall establish and periodically review QIs to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra-, and post-analytical processes. However, while some interesting programs on indicators in the total testing process have been developed in some countries, there is no consensus for the production of joint recommendations focusing on the adoption of universal QIs and common terminology in the total testing process. A preliminary agreement has been achieved in a Consensus Conference organized in Padua in 2013, after revising the model of quality indicators (MQI) developed by the Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The consensually accepted list of QIs, which takes into consideration both their importance and applicability, should be tested by all potentially interested clinical laboratories to identify further steps in the harmonization project.

This document provides a joint recommendation for venous blood sampling of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) and Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). It offers guidance on the requirements for ensuring that blood collection is a safe and patient-centered procedure and provides practical guidance on how to successfully overcome potential barriers and obstacles to its widespread implementation. The target audience for this recommendation are healthcare staff members directly involved in blood collection. This recommendation applies to the use of a closed blood collection system and does not provide guidance for the blood collection with an open needle and syringe and catheter collections. Moreover, this document neither addresses patient consent, test ordering, sample handling and transport nor collection from children and unconscious patients. The recommended procedure is based on the best available evidence. Each step was graded using a system that scores the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. The process of grading was done at several face-to-face meetings involving the same mixture of stakeholders stated previously. The main parts of this recommendation are: 1) Pre-sampling procedures, 2) Sampling procedure, 3) Post-sampling procedures and 4) Implementation. A first draft of the recommendation was circulated to EFLM members for public consultation. WG-PRE-LATAM was also invited to comment the document. A revised version has been sent for voting on to all EFLM and COLABIOCLI members and has been officially endorsed by 33/40 EFLM and 21/21 COLABIOCLI members. We encourage professionals throughout Europe and Latin America to adopt and implement this recommendation to improve the quality of blood collection practices and increase patient and workers safety.

Laboratory diagnostics develop through different phases that span from test ordering (pre-preanalytical phase), collection of diagnostic specimens (preanalytical phase), sample analysis (analytical phase), results reporting (postanalytical phase) and interpretation (post-postanalytical phase). Although laboratory medicine seems less vulnerable than other clinical and diagnostic areas, the chance of errors is not negligible and may adversely impact on quality of testing and patient safety. This article, which continues a biennial tradition of collective papers on preanalytical quality improvement, is aimed to provide further contributions for pursuing quality and harmony in the preanalytical phase, and is a synopsis of lectures of the third European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled 'Preanalytical quality improvement. In pursuit of harmony' (Porto, 20-21 March 2015). The leading topics that will be discussed include unnecessary laboratory testing, management of test request, implementation of the European Union (EU) Directive on needlestick injury prevention, harmonization of fasting requirements for blood sampling, influence of physical activity and medical contrast media on in vitro diagnostic testing, recent evidence about the possible lack of necessity of the order of draw, the best practice for monitoring conditions of time and temperature during sample transportation, along with description of problems emerging from inappropriate sample centrifugation. In the final part, the article includes recent updates about preanalytical quality indicators, the feasibility of an External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) for the preanalytical phase, the results of the 2nd EFLM WG-PRE survey, as well as specific notions about the evidence-based quality management of the preanalytical phase.

Introduction: No guideline currently exists on how to detect or document haemolysis, icterus or lipemia (HIL) in blood samples, nor on subsequent use of this information. The EFLM WG-PRE has performed a survey for assessing current practices of European laboratories in HIL monitoring. This second part of two coherent articles is focused on HIL. Materials and methods: An online survey, containing 39 questions on preanalytical issues, was disseminated among EFLM member countries. Seventeen questions exclusively focused on assessment, management and follow-up actions of HIL in routine blood samples. Results: Overall, 1405 valid responses from 37 countries were received. A total of 1160 (86%) of all responders stating to analyse blood samples - monitored HIL. HIL was mostly checked in clinical chemistry samples and less frequently in those received for coagulation, therapeutic drug monitoring and serology/infectious disease testing. HIL detection by automatic HIL indices or visual inspection, along with haemolysis cut-offs definition, varied widely among responders. A quarter of responders performing automated HIL checks used internal quality controls. In haemolytic/icteric/lipemic samples, most responders (70%) only rejected HIL-sensitive parameters, whilst about 20% released all test results with general comments. Other responders did not analysed but rejected the entire sample, while some released all tests, without comments. Overall, 26% responders who monitored HIL were using this information for monitoring phlebotomy or sample transport quality. Conclusion: Strategies for monitoring and treating haemolytic, icteric or lipemic samples are quite heterogeneous in Europe. The WG-PRE will use these insights for developing and providing recommendations aimed at harmonizing strategies across Europe.