Search

Molecular genetic analysis of families with hemophilia and other heritable bleeding disorders is a frequently requested laboratory investigation. In the United Kingdom, laboratories undertaking genetic testing must participate in a recognized external quality assessment scheme for formal accreditation. The UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) for heritable bleeding disorders was established in its current format in 2003, and currently has 27 registered participants in the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and the non-EU countries. Two exercises per annum are circulated to participants comprising either whole blood or DNA isolated from cell lines, and laboratories are allowed 6 weeks to analyze the samples and generate a report. Reports are assessed by a panel comprising clinicians and scientists with expertise in this area. Samples to date have involved analysis of the F8 gene (10 exercises), the F9 gene (4 exercises), and the VWF gene (3 exercises) and have comprised a wide spectrum of mutations representing the routine workload encountered in the molecular genetics laboratory. The majority of laboratories in each exercise passed, but a small number did not and reasons for failing included clerical errors, genotyping inaccuracies, and a failure to correctly interpret data. Overall we have seen an improvement in quality of reports submitted for assessment, with a more concise format that will be of value to referring clinicians and counsellors. Informal feedback from participants has been very positive.

Global hemostasis devices are currently being employed in operating rooms to assess the bleeding risk and outcomes for patients undergoing surgery. Two devices currently available are the TEG (Thromboelastograph; Haemoscope Corp., Niles, IL) and the ROTEM (Rotation Thromboelastometer; Pentapharm GmbH, Munich, Germany). Both measure the speed of clot formation, the strength of the clot when formed, and clot fibrinolysis kinetics. The two devices use different parameters so no cross comparisons of results can be made. The devices are usually operated by a member of the operating team and not a laboratory scientist; thus their testing and performance is generally not laboratory controlled, despite quality control being required to ensure reliable results. The UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) for Blood Coagulation has undertaken a series of exercises evaluating the provision of External Quality Assessment (EQA) material for these devices. A series of four studies have taken place using lyophilized plasmas as the test material. Up to 18 TEG users and 10 ROTEM users have been involved in testing two samples per study, for a total of eight samples tested. The samples were normal plasmas, factor VIII or XI deficient samples, or normal plasmas spiked with heparin. The precision of the tests varied greatly for both devices, with coefficients of variances ranging from 7.1 to 39.9% for TEG and 7.0 to 83.6% for ROTEM. Some centers returned results that were sufficiently different from those obtained by other participants to predict alterations in patient management decisions. Our data indicate that regular EQA/proficiency testing is needed for these devices.

We report the results of external quality assessment exercises in which 60 to 120 centers performed factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitor testing on a series of samples over a 13-year period. Samples from seven different subjects were distributed for analysis comprising the following: four different subjects with severe hemophilia A with antibodies following replacement therapy, one subject with acquired hemophilia A and antibodies to FVIII, one subject with normal FVIII and an easily detected lupus anticoagulant, and one subject with mild hemophilia A and a difficult-to-detect lupus anticoagulant but without antibodies to FVIII. In all of the surveys the results obtained in different centers analyzing the same sample varied to an extent that would influence patient management decisions. In the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme surveys reported here, there was considerable interlaboratory variation in the results of FVIII inhibitor testing that did not improve over the survey period. The coefficient of variation of results in different centers was between 33% and 106% in samples from patients with severe congenital hemophilia A. In some cases, results were affected by assay components. For one plasma, the mean FVIII inhibitor results in centers using one source of normal plasma was 3.9 Bethesda unit (BU)/mL compared with a mean of 5.7 BU/mL in centers using a different normal plasma source ( P = 0.04). Our data indicate that the detection of FVIII inhibitors is not the same in different centers, and the degree of variability noted makes it likely that assay variability has contributed to the lack of international consensus in relation to the real incidence of FVIII inhibitors in different clinical settings. Improvements in assay standardization are urgently needed.

SummaryAccurate and precise measurement of plasma D-dimer levels is important in the diagnosis and management of venous thromboembolism. Considerable variability in D-dimer results obtained using different methods has, however, been reported in multicentre studies. This study explored in two separate multicentre exercises the degree of precision amongst laboratory D-dimer measurements, and the degree by which inter-method agreement could be improved using a calibration curve model. The first exercise demonstrated generally good within-centre precision, with 82% of the centres reporting results for two identical but differently coded samples within 10% of each other. However, six centres reported results which would have excluded deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for one sample but failed to exclude DVT for the other, identical sample. In the second exercise, overall between-method precision of D-dimer results for two samples was shown to improve markedly when a calibration model was applied, using the consensus median values obtained by all participants for three “calibration plasmas” to recalculate D-dimer values. For centres reporting results in fibrinogen equivalent units (FEUs),between-centre coefficients of variation (CVs) fell from 25.9% to 11.6% and 22.4% to 7.7%, respectively, for the two samples. For centres reporting in ng/ml, CVs fell from 45.3–21.6% and 40.8–11.6%,respectively. In conclusion, improved harmonisation of D-dimer results by different methods may be achieved by a calibration model and common calibrant plasmas.

SummaryExternal quality assessment (EQA) or proficiency testing is widely considered to be necessary for International Normalised Ratio (INR) determinations performed in conventional laboratory settings. There is increasing use of near-patient-test (NPT) or point-of-care (POC) INR devices and it is not known whether EQA is also necessary for these monitors. We report here on six years experience of proficiency testing for POC monitors used by health care professionals. Three devices were used by >10 centres who participated in the programme, the CoaguChek (CUC), the CUC-S and the TAS or Rapidpoint Coag. Not all users of the same type of monitor obtained the same INR result when analysing the same plasma sample. For the three monitors the CV of results in different centres was 11–14%. The variation between results in different centres could relate to inappropriately handled proficiency testing material, inaccuracies in the calibration of the system by the manufacturer or deterioration during transport/storage of the test strips. In each survey 10–11% of centres using POC monitors obtained INR results which were >15% different from those in other centres using the same monitors. For hospital laboratories using conventional INR techniques this figure was 12%. The relationship between INR results obtained by users of the Rapidpoint Coag orTAS monitor and results obtained by conventional techniques was not constant over the period of study. During one period INRs with TAS were 13.7% greater than with conventional methods. For the remaining three time periods results were similar. Our data suggest that the variation between INR results determined with three POC monitors show similar variation to that observed in hospital laboratories using conventional methods. Based on our data we recommend that users of these POC monitors participate regularly in an independent external proficiency testing programme.

SummaryMolecular genetic analysis of families with haemophilia and other inherited bleeding disorders is nowa common laboratory investigation. In contrast to phenotypic testing in which strict quality control is adhered to, in haemophilia molecular genetic testing there has been a lack of any external quality assurance schemes. In 1998 the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) established a pilot quality assurance scheme for molecular genetic testing in haemophilia. Results from three initial surveys highlighted problems with the quality of samples when used to screen for the intron 22 inversion within the F8 gene. The scheme was re-launched in 2003, and since that time there have been five exercises involving whole blood or immortalised cell line DNA. The results together with an overall summary of the exercise are subsequently returned to participants. Exercises to date have focused exclusively on haemophilia A and QA, material has included screening for the intron 1 and intron 22 inversions as well as sequence analysis. A paper exercise circulated in 2003 highlighted problems with the format of reports and, following feedback to participants, onlya single error has been made in the subsequent four exercises. Participating laboratories now receive QA material every six months. Immortalised cell line material was introduced in 2005 and was shown to perform well. This will allow expansion of the scheme and a reduction in the dependence on blood donation.

We describe here results from the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) Thrombophilia Screening Program, in which an average of 21% of 280 centers reported an incorrect diagnosis for a series of plasma samples. Three case studies are described, showing causes of error in individual laboratories, related to the source of reference plasma or reagents. Methodological bias is also described. For protein C (PC) assays 18% of centers reported PC deficiency in a patient homozygous for factor V Leiden. Studies in the NEQAS laboratory confirmed the effect of activated protein C resistance (APCR) on clot-based PC activity assays. Differences in results obtained for PS-deficient subjects with different protein S (PS) activity kits are reported; several subjects would be misdiagnosed as normal with one kit if the manufacturer's reported reference range was adopted instead of a locally determined reference range. Antithrombin (AT) assays were shown to vary in their sensitivity to different molecular defects in the antithrombin gene; 77% of centers employing human thrombin-based activity assays reported a normal AT level in a patient with antithrombin Cambridge II. Sensitivity of the APC resistance test in the absence of factor V-deficient plasma was shown to be improved through normalization of results, and errors in the genetic diagnosis of factor V Leiden and the P20210A prothrombin gene mutation are described. Errors in the diagnosis of thrombophilic defects can therefore be identified through participation in EQA programs, and following dissemination of information, improvements in diagnosis can be demonstrated.

SummaryIn the present study we have performed local calibration of International Normalised Ratio (INR) measurement systems in a large series of laboratories. We assigned INRs to five lyophilised plasma calibrants, one prepared from normal plasma and four using plasma from war-farinised patients, using different International Reference Preparations for Thromboplastin. These five calibrants, and two lyophilised test plasmas were analysed by 349 centres using 60 different thromboplastin instrument combinations.Plasma calibrants were assigned INRs using the WHO reference thromboplastin RBT-90 or the European reference thromboplastin CRM 149R. Each participating centre determined PTs of the calibrants with their local system. These PTs were then used to construct a local calibration graph relating PT to INR. The PTs of test plasmas were converted directly into INR using the local calibration model and into INR using the conventional method. The overall medians of conventionally derived INRs of two test plasmas analysed in 349 centres were 2.50 and 3.10, compared to 2.47 and 3.04 after local calibration where RBT-90 was employed to assign INRs to calibrants. Use of CRM 149R to assign INRs to calibrants led to a significant (p

SummaryThe identification of the presence of antiphospholipid in plasma is recognised to be of diagnostic and prognostic importance in subjects with thrombotic disease, recurrent miscarriage or collagen vascular disorders. A number of coagulation assays are currently employed for the detection of lupus anticoagulant (LA), many of which are influenced by reagent dependent and methodological variables.In the present study lyophilised plasma samples from three subjects with “strong”, “weak” and “absent” LA were tested in 220 centres. The most commonly used tests for LA were Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT), Dilute Russell Viper Venom Time (DRVVT) and Kaolin Clotting Time (KCT). Median DRVVT ratios were 1.75, 1.17 and 1.10 for the three samples. The presence of a strong LA was not detected by 4% of laboratories. The correct diagnosis was made by 94% of users of DRVVT and 85% of users of KCT. A weak LA was not detected by over half of centres. Correction was observed on addition of plasma and also in platelet neutralisation. The correct diagnosis was made by 37% of users of DRVVT and 27% of users of KCT. Lupus Anticoagulant was falsely considered to be present in a Factor IX deficient plasma by approximately one quarter of laboratories. Amongst users of DRVVT and KCT absence of LA in this sample was correctly reported by 73% and 69% of centres respectively.The accuracy of testing for LA in the present study is suboptimal and this is likely to have important clinical consequences. There is clearly a need for greater conformity in the selection and performance of LA tests to facilitate accurate diagnosis of this important group of disorders.

SummaryRecent advances in recombinant technology have led to the development of prothrombin time (PT) reagents containing recombinant tissue factor which has been lipidated to allow expression of procoagulant activity. In this study we have compared International Normalised Ratios (INRs) determined using two such reagents and conventional thromboplastins in widespread use in the UK.Lyophilised plasma samples from eight different warfarinised patients were distributed to 33 laboratories in the UK. Each participant determined prothrombin times on 20 local fresh normal plasmas (used to derive mean normal PT and calculate INR) and the eight lyophilised samples, using manual technique and the following thromboplastins; Recombiplastin (Ortho Diagnostics Ltd); Innovin (Baxter Diagnostics Ltd); the conventional thromboplastin in local use.For eight plasmas the mean INRs determined with different reagents were as follows: Innovin (33 laboratories) - 3.4; Manchester Reagent (MR = 8 laboratories) - 3.4; Recombiplastin (33 laboratories) - 3.7; Instrumentation Laboratory (IL = 13 laboratories) - 4.4.Mean INR results with Recombiplastin were on average 7% greater than those obtained with Innovin, 8% greater than results with MR and 18% less than INRs with IL thromboplastin. There was no significant difference between results obtained with Innovin and MR. In contrast INRs obtained with IL were markedly (mean 28%) greater than results obtained with Innovin.This study employed lyophilised plasma and it is possible that some of the relationships described are influenced by this. However, the lyo-philisation process employed did not influence the relationship between INRs of warfarinised plasmas obtained by the four main reagents described, indicating that the results are relevant to routine clinical practice.In conclusion, our data show some important differences are present between INRs determined using Recombiplastin, Innovin and two conventional thromboplastins.

Accurate and precise measurement of plasma D-dimer levels is important in the diagnosis and management of venous thromboembolism. Considerable variability in D-dimer results obtained using different methods has, however, been reported in multicentre studies. This study explored in two separate multicentre exercises the degree of precision amongst laboratory D-dimer measurements, and the degree by which inter-method agreement could be improved using a calibration curve model. The first exercise demonstrated generally good within-centre precision, with 82% of the centres reporting results for two identical but differently coded samples within 10% of each other. However, six centres reported results which would have excluded deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for one sample but failed to exclude DVT for the other, identical sample. In the second exercise, overall between-method precision of D-dimer results for two samples was shown to improve markedly when a calibration model was applied, using the consensus median values obtained by all participants for three "calibration plasmas" to recalculate D-dimer values. For centres reporting results in fibrinogen equivalent units (FEUs), between-centre coefficients of variation (CVs) fell from 25.9% to 11.6% and 22.4% to 7.7%, respectively, for the two samples. For centres reporting in ng/ml, CVs fell from 45.3-21.6% and 40.8-11.6%, respectively. In conclusion, improved harmonisation of D-dimer results by different methods may be achieved by a calibration model and common calibrant plasmas.

A diagnosis of hemophilia A or hemophilia B begins with clinical assessment of the patient and is facilitated by laboratory testing. The influence of the latter on a diagnosis of hemophilia A or hemophilia B is clear-a diagnosis cannot be made without laboratory confirmation of a deficiency of factor FVIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively. Moreover, the degree of hemophilia severity is specifically characterized by laboratory test results. In turn, patient management, including choice and application of therapies, is influenced by the diagnosis, as well as by identification of respective disease severity. An incorrect diagnosis may lead to inappropriate management and unnecessary therapy, and thus to adverse outcomes. Moreover, identification of factor inhibitors in hemophilia will lead to additional and differential treatments, and incorrect identification of inhibitors or inhibitor levels may also lead to inappropriate management. Problems in hemophilia diagnosis or inhibitor detection can occur at any stage in the clinical diagnosis/laboratory interface, from the "pre-preanalytical" to "preanalytical" to "analytical" to "postanalytical" to "post-postanalytical." This report outlines the various problems in laboratory testing for hemophilia and provides various strategies or solutions to overcome these challenges. Although some outlined solutions are specific to the potential errors related to hemophilia, others are general in nature and can be applied to other areas of laboratory hemostasis. Key to improvement in this area is adoption of best practice by all involved, including clinicians, phlebotomists, and laboratories. Also key is the recognition that such errors may occur, and thus that clinicians should assess laboratory test results in the context of their patient's clinical history and follow-up any potential errors, thus avoid misdiagnoses, by requesting repeat testing on a fresh sample.

Further Evidence that Activated Protein C Resistance Affects Protein C Coagulant Activity Assays

A UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK Neqas) for Molecular Genetic Testing for the Diagnosis of Familial Thrombophilia