Search

Background External quality assessment programs are one of the currently available tools to evaluate the analytical performance of clinical laboratories, where the measurement error (ME) obtained can be compared with quality specifications to evaluate possible deviations. The objective of this work was to analyze the ME behavior over the analytical range to assess the need to establish concentration-dependent specifications. Methods A total of 389,000 results from 585 laboratories and 2628 analyzers were collected from the Spanish external quality assessment schemes (EQAS) in hematology during the years 2015–2016. The parameters evaluated included white blood cells, red blood cells, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, platelets, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, reticulocytes, hemoglobin A2, antithrombin, factor VIII, protein C and von Willebrand factor. The 90th percentile of ME was calculated for every concentration evaluated of each parameter. Results We found a significant variation in the analytical performance of leukocytes, platelets, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, prothrombin time, reticulocytes, hemoglobin A2, antithrombin and protein C. Furthermore, this ME variation may not allow complying with the same biological variability requirements within the whole analytical range studied. Conclusions Our work shows the importance of implementing concentration-dependent specifications which can help laboratories to use proper criteria for quality specifications selection and for a better external quality control results evaluation.

Background To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). Methods We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18–60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8–12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. Findings Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84–85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53–8161·96) at day 14 (p

Introduction: Laboratories minimize risks through quality control but analytical errors still occur. Risk management can improve the quality of processes and increase patient safety. This study aims to use the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to assess the analytical performance and measure the effectiveness of the risk mitigation actions implemented. Materials and methods: The measurands to be included in the study were selected based on the measurement errors obtained by participating in an External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme. These EQA results were used to perform an FMEA of the year 2017, providing a risk priority number that was converted into a Sigma value (σFMEA). A root-cause analysis was done when σFMEA was lower than 3. Once the causes were determined, corrective measures were implemented. An FMEA of 2018 was carried out to verify the effectiveness of the actions taken. Results: The FMEA of 2017 showed that alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and sodium (Na) presented a σFMEA of less than 3. The FMEA of 2018 revealed that none of the measurands presented a σFMEA below 3 and that σFMEA for ALP and Na had increased. Conclusions: Failure mode and effect analysis is a useful tool to assess the analytical performance, solve problems and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken. Moreover, the proposed methodology allows to standardize the scoring of the scales, as well as the evaluation and prioritization of risks.