Anne Stavelin

Discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio Results between Instruments: A Model to Split the Variation into Subcomponents

BACKGROUND Observed differences between results obtained from comparison of instruments used to measure international normalized ratio (INR) have been higher than expected from the imprecision of the instruments. In this study the variation of these differences was divided into subcomponents, and each of the subcomponents was estimated. METHODS Blood samples were collected at 4 different patient visits from each of 36 outpatients who were receiving warfarin treatment and were included in the study. INR was determined on 1 laboratory instrument (STA Compact®) and 3 point-of-care instruments (Simple Simon®PT, CoaguChek®XS, and INRatio™). All 4 INR instruments were compared in pairs. Linear regression was used to correct for systematic deviations. The remaining variation of the differences was subdivided into between-subject, within-subject, and analytical variation in an ANOVA nested design. RESULTS The mean difference between instruments varied between 1.0% and 14.3%. Between-subject variation of the differences (expressed as CV) varied between 3.3% and 7.4%, whereas within-subject variation of the differences was approximately 5% for all 6 comparisons. The analytical imprecision of the differences varied between 3.8% and 8.6%. CONCLUSIONS The differences in INR between instruments were subdivided into calibration differences, between- and within-subject variation, and analytical imprecision. The magnitude of each subcomponent was estimated. Within results for individual patients the difference in INR between 2 instruments varied over time. The reasons for the between- and within-subject variations of the differences can probably be ascribed to different patient-specific effects in the patient plasma. To minimize this variation in a monitoring situation, each site and patient should use results from only 1 type of instrument.

External quality assessment of point-of-care International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing in Europe

Abstract Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) of prothrombin time, expressed as International Normalized Ratio (INR), is widely used to monitor patients in oral anticoagulation treatment. Guidelines recommend that POCT users should participate in an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme whenever available. The aim of this study was to investigate which European countries provide EQA for POCT INR and to compare how these schemes are organized. Methods: Thirty European countries were invited to participate in this study. Those who reported that they provide EQA for POCT INR filled in a questionnaire dealing with different aspects of their schemes. Results: Nineteen countries reported that they do not provide EQA for POCT INR, while 12 organizations from nine countries reported that they provide this service. Most of these countries circulate lyophilized samples with for the participants unknown target values. Samples with certified INR values and procedures using split samples with fresh patient samples are also used. The acceptability limits vary from 15% to 30%, and the total number of samples circulated per year varies from 1 to 12. Most of the countries organize educational activities together with their schemes. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that there is a wide variation in the way EQA for POCT INR is performed in Europe and that there are many European countries that do not provide this service. Even though our findings indicate that EQA for POCT INR draws some challenges, especially in providing suitable control materials, participation in such schemes is considered useful.

External quality assessment of prothrombin time: The split‐sample model compared with external quality assessment with commercial control material

Objective. CoaguChek S is a point‐of‐care, whole‐blood, prothrombin time monitor. The purpose of this study was to compare two different methods for external quality assessments of CoaguChek S. Material and methods. In the traditional external quality assessment scheme, commercial control material was sent to office laboratories and the results were compared with a method‐specific target value. In the alternative external quality assessment (the split‐sample survey) patient samples were analyzed on CoaguChek S at office laboratories, and venous blood samples from the same patients were analyzed at a hospital laboratory using an assigned comparison method. To obtain comparable performance criteria for the two methods, the limits for “good”, “acceptable” and “poor” performance evaluation in the split‐sample survey had to be expanded because of uncertainties in preanalytical factors and the comparison method. Results. In the traditional external quality assessment the total imprecision (between‐office and within‐office) was 8.0 % at the low level (1.6 INR (International Normalized Ratio)) and 10.5 % at the therapeutic level (3.4 INR). In the split‐sample survey the total imprecision was 12.3 % at the low level (2.1 INR) and 10.7 % at the high level (3.0 INR). Seventy‐five percent of the participating office laboratories were characterized as “good” with the traditional external quality assessments, whereas the corresponding number was 73 % using the split‐sample model. Conclusions. Available commercial control material for CoaguChek S is different from patient samples. This study demonstrates that split‐sample survey is achievable, and is an acceptable alternative to traditional external quality assessment for point‐of‐care prothrombin time monitors where appropriate control material is difficult to obtain.

The Importance of Reagent Lot Registration in External Quality Assurance/Proficiency Testing Schemes

BACKGROUND Providers of external quality assurance (EQA)/proficiency testing schemes have traditionally focused on evaluation of measurement procedures and participant performance and little attention has been given to reagent lot variation. The aim of the present study was to show the importance of reagent lot registration and evaluation in EQA schemes. METHODS Results from the Noklus (Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories) urine albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) and prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care EQA schemes from 2009-2015 were used as examples in this study. RESULTS The between-participant CV for Afinion ACR increased from 6%-7% to 11% in 3 consecutive surveys. This increase was caused by differences between albumin reagent lots that were also observed when fresh urine samples were used. For the INR scheme, the CoaguChek INR results increased with the production date of the reagent lots, with reagent lot medians increasing from 2.0 to 2.5 INR and from 2.7 to 3.3 INR (from the oldest to the newest reagent lot) for 2 control levels, respectively. These differences in lot medians were not observed when native patient samples were used. CONCLUSIONS Presenting results from different reagent lots in EQA feedback reports can give helpful information to the participants that may explain their deviant EQA results. Information regarding whether the reagent lot differences found in the schemes can affect patient samples is important and should be communicated to the participants as well as to the manufacturers. EQA providers should consider registering and evaluating results from reagent lots.

The Accu-Chek Mobile blood glucose monitoring system used under controlled conditions meets ISO 15197 standards in the hands of diabetes patients

Abstract Background. Self-monitoring of blood glucose is a cornerstone of diabetes management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical quality and the ease of use of the Accu-Chek Mobile, a new glucose monitoring system designed for capillary blood testing by diabetic patients. Materials and methods. The performance of the Accu-Chek Mobile was evaluated both in the hands of a scientist and of diabetes patients. The designated comparative method was a hexokinase-based laboratory method (Architect ci8200). Diabetics (N = 88) with previous experience of self-testing were recruited for the study. Patient samples, containing glucose in concentrations mainly between ˜4 and ˜20 mmol/L, were analyzed in duplicates both on the Accu-Chek Mobile and with the comparative method. The patients answered a questionnaire about the ease of use of the meter. Results. The meter yields reproducible readings, with an imprecision CV <5% as required by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). Of the glucose concentrations obtained by both the scientist and the patients, more than 95% of the individual results were within ± 20% of the comparative method, meeting the ISO 15197 accuracy goal, but not the stricter ± 10% ADA goal. Conclusion. Accu-Chek Mobile is a user-friendly glucometer that in a normo- and hyperglycemic range fulfils the ISO 15197 accuracy requirement, also in the hands of diabetes patients.

Effect of coagulation factors on discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio results between instruments.

Abstract Background: The reasons for discrepancies between International Normalized Ratio (INR) results determined by point-of-care-instruments and laboratory measurements are not fully understood. In this study we investigated whether different levels of coagulation factors in the plasma of patients can explain some of the systematic and/or random parts of the difference in INR between the instruments. Methods: Blood samples were collected at four different patient visits from each of 34 outpatients on warfarin treatment. INR was determined on a laboratory instrument (STA Compact®) and on three point-of-care instruments (Simple Simon®PT, CoaguChek®XS and INRatio™). In addition, the level of fibrinogen, coagulation factors II, V, VII and X was determined. INR instruments were compared in pairs. Simple linear regressions as well as multiple linear regressions and nested ANOVA analyses were used to examine the data. Results: The coagulation factors, especially fibrinogen, factors II and VII, could explain between 16% and 45% of the total variance of the differences in INR between instruments dependent on instruments compared. After correction for factors no systematic difference was seen for four of the six comparisons and the between- and within-subject variation of the differences were reduced by up to 69% and 52%, respectively. Conclusions: By correcting for the appropriate coagulation factors, especially the systematic differences, but also the between- and within-subject variation of the differences between instruments, were reduced. This indicates that different levels of coagulation factors in the plasma of the patients play an important role in explaining discrepancies between INR instruments.

Analytical performance specifications for external quality assessment – definitions and descriptions

Abstract External Quality Assurance (EQA) is vital to ensure acceptable analytical quality in medical laboratories. A key component of an EQA scheme is an analytical performance specification (APS) for each measurand that a laboratory can use to assess the extent of deviation of the obtained results from the target value. A consensus conference held in Milan in 2014 has proposed three models to set APS and these can be applied to setting APS for EQA. A goal arising from this conference is the harmonisation of EQA APS between different schemes to deliver consistent quality messages to laboratories irrespective of location and the choice of EQA provider. At this time there are wide differences in the APS used in different EQA schemes for the same measurands. Contributing factors to this variation are that the APS in different schemes are established using different criteria, applied to different types of data (e.g. single data points, multiple data points), used for different goals (e.g. improvement of analytical quality; licensing), and with the aim of eliciting different responses from participants. This paper provides recommendations from the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Task and Finish Group on Performance Specifications for External Quality Assurance Schemes (TFG-APSEQA) and on clear terminology for EQA APS. The recommended terminology covers six elements required to understand APS: 1) a statement on the EQA material matrix and its commutability; 2) the method used to assign the target value; 3) the data set to which APS are applied; 4) the applicable analytical property being assessed (i.e. total error, bias, imprecision, uncertainty); 5) the rationale for the selection of the APS; and 6) the type of the Milan model(s) used to set the APS. The terminology is required for EQA participants and other interested parties to understand the meaning of meeting or not meeting APS.

Essential aspects of external quality assurance for point-of-care testing

External quality assurance (EQA) or proficiency testing for point-of-care (POC) testing is in principle similar to EQA for larger hospital laboratories, but the participants are different. The participants are usually health care personnel with little or no knowledge of laboratory medicine. The implication of this is that the EQA provider has to a) convince the participants that participation in EQA schemes are important, b) be able to circulate materials with reasonable time intervals, c) produce feedback reports that are understandable, and d) offer help and guidance to the participants when needed. It is also important that EQA for POC testing e) address the pre-examination, the examination and the post-examination processes, and f) that schemes for measurement procedures using interval or ordinal scale are offered. The aim of the present paper is to highlight important issues of these essential aspects of EQA for POC testing.

The influence of coagulation factors on the in-treatment biological variation of international normalized ratio for patients on warfarin

Abstract Background. Biological variation is usually estimated in healthy individuals during steady-state conditions. The aim of this study was to estimate the in-treatment biological variation of the International normalised ratio (INR) and to investigate to what extent the different levels of coagulation factors could explain this variation. Methods. Blood samples were collected from randomly included patients on warfarin treatment. INR was determined on a laboratory instrument (STA Compact®) and on three point-of-care instruments (Simple Simon®PT, CoaguChek®XS and INRatio™). The level of fibrinogen, and the activity of coagulation factors II, V, VII and X were determined. Results. The in-treatment within- and between-subject coefficients of variation of INR were dependent on the method and varied between 18 and 24% and 13 and 19%, respectively, and were reduced to 3.9–5.1% and 2.3–5.8%, after correction for coagulation factors which could explain 91–95% of the variance of INR. Conclusions. The in-treatment biological variation of INR was higher than reported for healthy individuals as well as patients in a steady-state condition, but by correcting for appropriate coagulation factors it was reduced. The association between INR and coagulation factors was different for the different PT methods mainly due to different sensitivity towards FII and FVII.

Self-management of warfarin therapy

BACKGROUND Clinical studies from other countries show that self-management of warfarin therapy may reduce the risk of mortality, thromboembolism and complications when compared to conventional therapy. The purpose of this study was to train patients in self-management and compare the results with conventional therapy in Norway. METHOD A total of 23 patients who had previously been given conventional therapy by their GPs were instructed in how to measure INR (using the CoaguChek XS device) and administer warfarin dosage through a structured training programme over the course of 27 weeks. The participants continued with self-management for a further 28 weeks after the end of the training period. The time in the therapeutic range (TTR, measured as a percentage) was calculated and the TTR for conventional therapy and self-management were compared. RESULTS No significant difference in average TTR was found when comparing conventional therapy (70% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-78)) with the self-management period (75% (95% CI 69-81, p = 0.24)). The percentage of extreme INR values (< 1.5 or > 5.0) was higher during conventional therapy than during self-management (6.8% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION No significant difference in TTR was found when comparing self-management and conventional warfarin therapy in our study, but for self-management there was a lower percentage of extreme INR values compared to conventional warfarin therapy.