Interlaboratory variation in factor VIII:C inhibitor assay results is sufficient to influence patient management: data from the UK national quality external assessment scheme for blood coagulation.

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.

External quality assurance in thrombosis and hemostasis: an international perspective.

External Quality Assurance in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (EQATH) was organized in 2005 as an international collaboration of external quality assurance (EQA) programs and organizations with a common interest in improving the quality of hemostasis testing. The goals include exchanging of information regarding program operations; exchanging split specimens among programs to determine if there are differences in practice; participating in value setting of standards; and providing outreach programs to locations in the world without EQA support of hemostasis testing in laboratories. The organization currently includes 11 EQA programs from 10 countries. A survey of program structure and function revealed variation in the size and structure among the programs. In general, the staffing levels paralleled the size and complexity of the program. The number of laboratory participants in the EQA programs ranged from 58 to 1700. The presentation of testing covered in the program (modules) ranged from a program with a single module of a single test, to programs with single modules of many different types of tests, to a program with 13 modules, each of which contains a limited scope of related tests. Participating laboratories were graded (pass/fail or out with consensus) by six of the EQA programs, whereas five programs report the results to the laboratory for self-evaluation. Of the 11 programs responding, seven have deemed status from an accrediting or licensing agency, and successful participation satisfied requirements for accreditation for the participating laboratory. This type of benchmarking activity and cooperative activity among EQA programs will lead to improvement of the programs.

Point-of-care International Normalised Ratios: UK NEQAS experience demonstrates necessity for proficiency testing of three different monitors.

External 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 or TAS 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.

Establishment of the 1st International Genetic Reference Panel for Factor V Leiden, human gDNA.

Forty-one laboratories participated in an international collaborative study to assess the suitability of a panel of three genomic DNA samples as the 1st International Genetic Reference Panel for the Factor V Leiden (FVL) variant. The code numbers of the materials were 03/254 (FV wild type), 03/260 (FVL homozygote) and 03/248 (FVL heterozygote). The participants evaluated the panel against their in-house controls which were known patient samples and commercial controls. In total, 859 genotype tests were carried out on the panel, with an error rate of 0.7%. The errors were not related to specific samples of the panel or to any specific techniques. The findings of this study have indicated that this panel is suitable to be used as a reference material for genotyping of factor V Leiden. It was therefore recommended that the three genomic DNA samples be established as the 1st International Genetic Reference Panel for Factor V Leiden, Human gDNA, 04/224. This recommendation was approved by the Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) of the ISTH (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis) in June 2004 and the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) of the World Health Organization (WHO) in November 2004.

Variability in factor V:C assays in UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme surveys: there is a need for an international standard.

Severe familial factor V:C deficiency is a rare, recessively inherited coagulation disorder but there is little information in respect of the accuracy and reliability of factor V:C assays that are required for diagnosis and treatment monitoring. We present here the results of three External Quality Assessment exercises in respect of factor V:C assays undertaken by 192--225 participating laboratories performed over a 2-year period. Consistent significant differences were observed between results obtained using different reference plasmas and different thromboplastins. The relationship between results obtained with different reference plasmas was not constant and varied between the surveys. In-house studies confirmed the observation derived from the External Quality Assessment surveys that the choice of commercial reference plasma significantly affects the results of factor V:C assays. These results clearly indicate the necessity for an international standard for factor V:C.

Recurrence rate after a first venous thrombosis in patients with familial thrombophilia.

OBJECTIVE: Few comprehensive data are available on the recurrence rate of venous thrombosis in carriers of thrombophilic defects from thrombophilic families. We prospectively determined the recurrence rate after a first venous thrombotic event in patients with familial thrombophilia attributable to factor V Leiden or deficiencies of protein C, S, or antithrombin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were gathered during follow-up on the occurrence of risk situations, anticoagulation treatment, and events (eg, venous thrombosis, hemorrhage). Over a mean follow-up period of 5.6 years, 44 of the 180 patients with familial thrombophilia who did not use long-term anticoagulation experienced a recurrent venous thromboembolic event (5.0%/year; 95% CI 3.6 to 6.7) compared with 7 of the 124 patients on long-term anticoagulation (1.1%/year; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.2). Spontaneous events occurred less often in patients on long-term anticoagulation (57%) than in patients without long-term anticoagulation (75%). The highest recurrence rate was found among men with a deficiency in natural anticoagulants or multiple defects and women with antithrombin deficiency. Although long-term anticoagulation treatment decreased the incidence of recurrent events by 80%, it also resulted in a risk of major hemorrhage of 0.8% per year. CONCLUSIONS: Extra care after a first event is required for men with a deficiency in natural anticoagulants or multiple defects and women with antithrombin deficiency.

Multilaboratory testing in thrombophilia through the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (Blood Coagulation) Quality Assurance Program.

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.

Lupus anticoagulant testing: improvements in performance in a UK NEQAS proficiency testing exercise after dissemination of national guidelines on laboratory methods.

Laboratory screening for lupus anticoagulant (LA) has been shown to be suboptimal in several studies. Guidelines have recently been published by an expert group for the British Committee for Standards in Haematology, in an attempt to standardize and improve screening procedures. The value of using screening tests conforming with these guidelines was investigated in a United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) proficiency testing exercise. The correct diagnosis was achieved by 97% of laboratories for a LA-negative sample. However, 18.3% of centres reported a false-negative result for a sample from a LA-positive subject. A significantly higher proportion of centres that used methods conforming with the published guidelines achieved the correct diagnosis for this sample (P < 0.002, chi-square test). A wide variety of screening tests were used by laboratories in this study. Within-method agreement could be improved by the use of a common normal pooled plasma to determine ratios. However, between-method agreement was not improved by this procedure. We conclude that adoption of methods compliant with national guidelines may improve the diagnosis of LA. There is a need, however, for reference and standardization materials to ensure further improvement in the accuracy of LA methods.

Effects of hereditary and acquired risk factors of venous thrombosis on a thrombin generation-based APC resistance test.

BACKGROUND: Several hereditary and acquired risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with impaired down-regulation of thrombin formation via the protein C pathway. To identify individuals at risk, functional tests are needed that estimate the risk to develop venous thrombosis. METHOD: We determined the effects of hereditary and acquired risk factors of venous thrombosis on an APC resistance test that quantifies the influence of APC on the time integral of thrombin formation (the endogenous thrombin potential, ETP) initiated in plasma via the extrinsic coagulation pathway. APC sensitivity ratios (APCsr) were determined in plasma from carriers of factor V(Leiden) (n = 56) or prothrombin G20210A (n = 18), of individuals deficient in antithrombin (n = 9), protein C (n = 7) or protein S (n = 14) and of women exposed to acquired risk factors such as hormone replacement therapy (n = 49), oral contraceptive use (n = 126) or pregnancy (n = 35). We also analysed combinations of risk factors (n = 60). RESULTS: The thrombin generation-based APC resistance test was sensitive for the factor V(Leiden) and prothrombin G20210A mutation, to protein S deficiency, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use and pregnancy. The assay was not influenced by antithrombin or protein C deficiency. The presence of more than one risk factor of venous thrombosis resulted in more pronounced APC resistance. The APCsr of individuals with a single or combined risk factors of VTE correlated well with reported risk increases. INTERPRETATION: The thrombin generation-based APC resistance test identifies individuals at risk for venous thrombosis due to acquired risk factors and/or hereditary thrombophilic disorders that affect the protein C pathway.