Search

The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is the most commonly used equation for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Recently, the European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) announced a full-age spectrum equation, and the CKD-EPI announced the CKD-EPI refit equations (CKD-EPI-R). We compared CKD-EPI, EKFC, and CKD-EPI-R equations in a large-scale Korean population and investigated their potential implications for CKD prevalence. In a total of 106,021 individuals who received annual check-ups from 2018 to 2020, we compared the eGFR equations according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Weighted kappa (κ) agreement was used to compare the potential implications for CKD prevalence across the equations. The median value of eGFR tended to increase in the order of EKFC, CKD-EPI, and CKD-EPI-R equations (92.4 mL/min/1.73 m2, 96.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). The EKFC and CKD-EPI-R equations showed a very high correlation of eGFR and good agreement for CKD prevalence with CKD-EPI equation (r = 0.98 and 1.00; κ = 0.80 and 0.82, respectively). Compared with the CKD-EPI equation, the EFKC equation overestimated CKD prevalence (3.5%), and the CKD-EPI-R equation underestimated it (1.5%). This is the first study comparing CKD-EPI, EKFC, and CKD-EPI-R equations simultaneously. The EKFC and CKD-EPI-R equations were statistically interchangeable with CKD-EPI equations in this large-scale Korean population. The transition of eGFR equations, however, would lead to sizable changes in the CKD prevalence. To improve kidney health, in-depth discussion considering various clinical aspects is imperative for the transition of eGFR equations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We evaluated the analytical performance of CoaguChek Pro II (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), a new point‐of‐care device measuring the international normalized ratio (INR) values, in comparison with CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) and STA‐R Max using STA‐Neoplastine CI Plus (Diagnostica Stago SAS, Asnières‐sur‐Seine, France). Methods: The precision of Pro II was analyzed, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (CLSI POCT14‐A2 and EP15‐A3). In 105 clinical samples, the Pro II INR values were compared with those of XS Plus and STA‐R Max using STA‐Neoplastine CI Plus (CLSI EP09‐A3 and EP35). We also compared the Pro II INR values between capillary blood (CB) and venous blood (VB; CLSI EP35). Results: The precision of Pro II was acceptable (within‐run and between‐run CV%: 2.71% and 3.28% at normal level; 1.52% and 4.47% at abnormal level, respectively). The Pro II INR values showed very high correlation and almost perfect agreement with those of XS Plus and STA‐R Max using STA‐Neoplastine CI Plus (r =.97 and κ =.94; r =.95 and κ =.91). The mean difference between Pro II and STA‐R Max using STA‐Neoplastine CI Plus increased as INR values increased, with 60% of samples showing differences >0.5 in the supratherapeutic range. The Pro II INR values showed very high correlation between CB and VB (r =.98). Conclusion: Pro II INR values are accurate and reliable using both CB and VB; however, they should be confirmed by laboratory analyzers in the supratherapeutic range. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vision Pro (West Medica, Perchtoldsdorf, Austria) is a recently developed digital morphology analyzer. We evaluated the performance of Vision Pro on white blood cell (WBC) differentials. In a total of 200 peripheral blood smear samples (100 normal and 100 abnormal samples), WBC preclassification and reclassification by Vision Pro were evaluated and compared with manual WBC count, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (H20-A2). The overall sensitivity was high for normal WBCs and nRBCs (80.1–98.0%). The overall specificity and overall efficiency were high for all cell classes (98.1–100.0% and 97.7–99.9%, respectively). The absolute values of mean differences between Vision Pro and manual count ranged from 0.01 to 1.31. In leukopenic samples, those values ranged from 0.09 to 2.01. For normal WBCs, Vision Pro preclassification and manual count showed moderate or high correlations (r=0.52–0.88) except for basophils (r=0.34); after reclassification, the correlation between Vision Pro and manual count was improved (r=0.36–0.90). This is the first study that evaluated the performance of Vision Pro on WBC differentials. Vision Pro showed reliable analytical performance on WBC differentials with improvement after reclassification. Vision Pro could help improve laboratory workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60, Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We explored the performance of DI-60 in comparison with Sysmex XN analyzer (XN, Sysmex) and manual count. Methods: In a total of 276 samples (176 abnormal and 100 normal samples), white blood cell (WBC) differentials, red blood cell (RBC) classification and platelet (PLT) estimation by DI-60 were compared with the results by XN and/or manual count. RBC morphology between pre-classification and verification was compared according to the ICSH grading criteria. The manual count was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (H20-A2). Results: The overall concordance between DI-60 and manual count for WBCs was 86.0%. The agreement between DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (weighted κ = 0.963) for WBC five-part differentials. The correlation with manual count was very strong for neutrophils (r = 0.955), lymphocytes (r = 0.871), immature granulocytes (r = 0.820), and blasts (r = 0.879). RBC grading showed notable differences between DI-60 and manual counting on the basis of the ICSH grading criteria. Platelet count by DI-60 highly correlated with that by XN (r = 0.945). However, DI-60 underestimated platelet counts in samples with marked thrombocytosis. Conclusions: The performance of DI-60 for WBC differential, RBC classification, and platelet estimation seems to be acceptable even in abnormal samples with improvement after verification. DI-60 would help optimize the workflow in hematology laboratory with reduced manual workload. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]