Proficiency testing results for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in north america.

Between 2010 and 2012, North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) distributed five proficiency testing challenges to evaluate laboratory testing for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Results (n = 355) were submitted from 43 unique laboratories for 10 samples (3 positive, 2 weak positive, and 5 negative). The vast majority of results were from commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, predominantly polyvalent assays. Laboratories performed well in the classification of clear negative and positive samples. All results (100%) submitted for the five negative samples (n = 173) and 97% of immunological results submitted for the three positive samples (n = 105) were correctly classified (the incorrect responses were two borderline classifications and, from a gel-agglutination method, one negative classification). There was more difficulty in the classification of the two weak positive samples (n = 70). In one survey, 61% of results from the weak positive sample were classified as positive, while 21% were called negative, 16% were called borderline, and 2% were called inconclusive. In a second survey, 16% of results from the weak positive sample were called positive, while 56% were called negative, and 28% were called borderline. Significant interlaboratory variation was observed for ELISA results, with coefficients of variation of about 20 to 30%. We conclude that there is variability in HIT laboratory testing and that identification of weak positive samples can be challenging.

Protein C assay performance: an analysis of North American specialized coagulation laboratory association proficiency testing results.

To determine the performance and frequency of protein C reagents currently used by clinical laboratories, we analyzed North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) protein C proficiency testing data from 6 surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 (2009-1 to 2009-3 and 2010-1 to 2010-3). Interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CV) for commonly used reagents on a survey with normal protein C ranged from 8% to 12% for antigenic assays, from 4% to 7% for chromogenic activity assays, and from 7% to 22% for clot-based activity assays. CVs for commonly used reagents on specimens with abnormal protein C ranged from 15% to 24% for antigenic, 4% to 11% for chromogenic, and 10% to 17% for clot-based assays (averaged across 3 surveys). Some reagents were used by relatively few laboratories and therefore additional study may be needed for those reagents. For all commonly used reagents, biases were usually small and often not statistically significant. All assessed reagents were clinically accurate, and were considered acceptable options for a specialized coagulation laboratory.

Lupus anticoagulant testing: performance and practices by north american clinical laboratories.

Lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing is important for evaluating patients with antiphospholipid syndromes and hypercoagulable states. We reviewed results of proficiency testing challenges (n = 5) distributed by the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association to examine LAC testing performed by participating laboratories. The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) constituted major testing methods. In screening studies, LAC-sensitive APTT methods were more sensitive to weak LAC than dRVVT-based methods but less specific. In confirmatory testing, dRVVT methods performed better, but performance was LAC-dependent. The highest false-negative confirmatory test results were obtained for the platelet neutralization procedure. Noncompliance with recommendations for LAC testing by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis was high (8%-38%), with the majority of noncompliant laboratories failing to report results of mixing studies. These data provide new insights into LAC testing in North America and identify opportunities for standardization.

Analysis of von Willebrand factor structure by multimer analysis.

Analysis of von Willebrand factor (VWF) structure is achieved by performing a highly specialized procedure, VWF multimer analysis. The test is reserved for the reference or specialized laboratory environment. The assay is qualitative (though under some circumstances multimers may be quantified) in that it assesses the overall size distribution of VWF multimers as well as their individual internal structure. The test is used predominantly to type or subtype von Willebrand disease. The analysis of VWF multimers generally consists of four steps: (1) electrophoresis of plasma in an agarose gel, (2) either gel fixation or transfer of the electrophoretic protein product to a membrane, (3) immunodetection of the protein, and (4) evaluation of the protein in the gel or membrane. The assay is complex, time consuming, requires specialized equipment and technical expertise, and is not standardized.

Are laboratories following published recommendations for lupus anticoagulant testing? An international evaluation of practices.

Laboratory tests for lupus anticoagulants (LA) are commonly performed to evaluate thrombosis or suspected phospholipid antibody syndromes. To determine current LA testing practices, and if they conform to published recommendations, two questionnaires were distributed to clinical laboratory members of the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) and the ECAT Foundation (ECAT). The first and second questionnaires were completed by 113 and 96 laboratories, respectively. Commonly performed LA tests included the dilute Russell's viper venom time, LA sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time and hexagonal phospholipid test. Although some laboratories did single LA tests if requested, the majority complied with published recommendations: to use platelet poor plasma for LA tests; to use two or more screening tests, representing different assay principles, and one assay having a low phospholipid concentration to exclude LA; to confirm LA phospholipid dependency by the method giving an abnormal LA screen; to document the inhibitor activity on pooled normal plasma; and not to use phospholipid antibodies to confirm LA. A minority (<35%) followed the recommendations to exclude factor deficiencies and factor inhibitors as the cause of an abnormal LA test. After participating, 32% of laboratories had changed practices and 20% indicated that they would be changing practices. While most laboratories generally follow published guidelines for LA testing, few follow recommendations to evaluate for other coagulation abnormalities. Questionnaires may be helpful quality initiatives to improve compliance with laboratory testing guidelines and recommendations.

Laboratory testing for lupus anticoagulants: pre-examination variables, mixing studies, and diagnostic criteria.

The latest international guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants (LA) date back to 1995 and are in need of revision. Various patterns of practice and interpretation by clinical laboratories have altered the intent or usage of the criteria and recommendations made at that time. Moreover, various topics in the preexamination phase of LA testing (such as the role of the clinician in test ordering, the impact of direct thrombin inhibitors or oral anticoagulant therapy, and patient biologic variation) need to be considered in future guidelines. In like fashion, examination issues relating to mixing studies will need critical review. Mixing studies have been applied to a variety of low-phospholipid LA screening assays, and no uniformity or standardization exists as to how these test results should be interpreted or if in fact they are suitable for identifying weak lupus anticoagulants.

Variability in clinical laboratory practice in testing for disorders of platelet function: results of two surveys of the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association.

Disorders of platelet function are important causes of abnormal bleeding that require laboratory tests for diagnosis. Currently there are limited guidelines on how to perform clinical testing for these disorders. The goal of our study was to obtain information on how disorders of platelet function are currently evaluated in clinical laboratories. Two patterns-of-practice surveys were distributed to laboratories of the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA). The information collected was analyzed to determine practices and common problems. Forty-seven NASCOLA laboratories participated and 54% completed both surveys. The majority of the laboratories that responded performed more than 50 aggregation tests per year, mainly using platelet rich plasma based methodologies. A minority performed testing for platelet secretion and dense granule abnormalities. While platelet aggregation results were reviewed in various ways, laboratories most commonly issued a combined report containing quantitative values (% aggregation and/or slope) and a qualitative interpretation. Although laboratories used similar agonists for aggregation testing, the final agonist concentrations varied widely. Several approaches were also used to obtain reference intervals. Comments offered by the participants indicated that performing, and interpreting platelet function tests were challenging for many clinical laboratories. Although common practices have evolved, there is considerable variability in the diagnostic test procedures used by clinical laboratories to evaluate disorders of platelet function. These patterns-of-practice surveys illustrate a need for guidelines and recommendations for clinical laboratories performing tests of platelet function.