Bruce H. Davis

Neutrophil CD64 is an improved indicator of infection or sepsis in emergency department patients.

CONTEXTnSepsis, affecting millions of individuals annually with an associated high mortality rate, is among the top 10 causes of death. In addition, improvements in diagnostic tests for detecting and monitoring sepsis and infection have been limited in the last 25 years. Neutrophil CD64 expression has been proposed as an improved diagnostic test for the evaluation of infection and sepsis.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a quantitative flow cytometric assay for leukocyte CD64 expression in comparison with the standard tests for infection/sepsis in an ambulatory care setting.nnnDESIGNnProspective analysis of 100 blood samples from patients from an emergency department setting in a 965-bed tertiary care suburban community hospital was performed for neutrophil CD64 expression, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and complete blood count. The laboratory findings were compared with a clinical score for the likelihood of infection/sepsis, which was obtained by a blinded retrospective chart review.nnnRESULTSnThe diagnostic performance, as gauged by the clinical score, varied with neutrophil CD64 (sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 71.2%, efficiency 76.8%) and outperformed C-reactive protein (sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 59.4%, efficiency 69.4%), absolute neutrophil count (sensitivity 60.0%, specificity 50.8%, efficiency 53.8%), myeloid left shift (sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 76.3%, efficiency 73.3%), and sedimentation rate (sensitivity 50.0%, specificity 65.5%, efficiency 61.0%).nnnCONCLUSIONnNeutrophil CD64 expression quantitation provides improved diagnostic detection of infection/sepsis compared with the standard diagnostic tests used in current medical practice.

Optimal number of reagents required to evaluate hematolymphoid neoplasias: Results of an international consensus meeting

At the ISAC 2000 Congress, the Clinical Cytometry Society organized a meeting of international experts to reach consensus on the minimum number of antibodies required for a full evaluation of hematologic and lymphoid neoplasias. A questionnaire was distributed prior to the meeting to numerous experts from US and European institutions and 13 responses were received. At the meeting, 25 individuals, including most of those who returned responses, participated in the discussions and voted on the issues presented. In chronic lymphoproliferative disorders (CLD), 9 antibodies (anti-CD5, CD19, kappa, lambda, CD3, CD20, CD23, CD10, and CD45) were deemed essential for initial evaluation by 75% of the participants. There was near unanimity that additional markers (selected from CD22, FMC7, CD11c, CD103, CD38, CD25, CD79b and heavy chains for B-cell disorders, and CD4, CD7, CD8, CD2, CD56, CD16, TCRa/b, and TCRg/d for T-cell disorders) would be needed to fully characterize CLD, although not every marker would be useful in all cases. Tissue lymphomas were believed to be similar to CLD, needing a minimum of 12--16 markers. However, for some cases, CD30, bcl-2, TdT, CD71, CD1a, and CD34 were cited as useful by the participants. Markers mentioned for plasma cell disorders included kappa, lambda, CD38, CD45, CD56, CD19, CD20, CD138, and heavy chains. Of 17 voting participants, 16 agreed that between 5 to 8 markers would be essential reagents for plasma cell disorders. For acute leukemia (AL), 10 markers (CD10, CD19, CD13, CD33, CD34, CD45, CD7, CD14, CD3, and HLADR) were considered essential by 75% of participants for initial characterization of the leukemia lineage. Most (>75%) agreed that at least one more B (CD20, CD22, CD79a, IgM), T (CD1a, CD2, CD4, CD5, CD8), myeloid (CD11b, CD15, CD64, CD117, myeloperoxidase), erythroid (CD36, CD71, glycophorin A), and megakaryocytic (CD41, CD61) reagents should be included in the essential panel. However, there was no agreement as to which was optimal. Thus, approximately 13--15 of those reagents would be considered essential in all cases of AL, whereas others (CD16, CD56, CDw65, TdT, and cytoplasmic CD3) were mentioned as useful in some cases. Almost all voting participants believed that the appropriate number of markers for complete characterization of AL would average 20--24. The majority of the responders (11 of 13) indicated that fewer reagents could be used in monitoring or staging patients with previously characterized disease, but not all ventured a specific number of reagents. From the above results, we conclude that the phenotypic analysis of hematologic and lymphoid neoplasia requires a rather extensive panel of reagents. Supplementary reagents might even be necessary if they prove to become relevant for diagnostic purposes. Reducing the number of antibodies could significantly compromise the diagnostic accuracy, appropriate monitoring, or therapy of these disorders.

Platelet Counting by the RBC/Platelet Ratio Method: A Reference Method

The International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) and the International Society of Laboratory Hematology (ISLH) recommend the counting of specifically labeled platelets relative to the RBCs with a fluorescence flow cytometer, together with an accurate RBC count determined with a semiautomated, single-channel aperture-impedance counter as a reference method for the enumeration of platelets. Fresh EDTA-anticoagulated venous blood specimens are measured within 4 hours of the draw. The specimen is prediluted (1:20) and the platelets labeled with two monoclonal antibodies specific to a cluster of differentiation common to all platelets. A final 1:1,000 dilution is made and at least 50,000 events with a minimum of 1,000 platelet events are counted with a flow cytometer to determine the RBC/platelet ratio. The platelet count is then calculated from this ratio and the RBC concentration of the original blood specimen.

An Interlaboratory Study of a Candidate Reference Method for Platelet Counting

A multinational interlaboratory task force explored the important variables of platelet reference counting and developed a candidate flow cytometric reference method based on the RBC/platelet ratio. A multicenter comparison was performed to determine whether the method met the necessary criteria and was precise enough to be recommended as a new reference method. Each laboratory analyzed serial dilutions of normal specimens, stabilized material, and at least 60 patient specimens with a range of platelet counts from 1 to 400 x 10(3)/microL (1-400 x 10(9)/L). Pooled analysis of the serial dilutions showed that RBC-platelet and RBC-RBC coincidence events became negligible at sufficiently high dilutions (i.e., > 1:1,000). All laboratories demonstrated excellent intra-assay and acceptable interlaboratory precision. Two antibodies (CD61 and CD41) were used for identifying platelets and individually gave acceptable results, but in a minority of samples, staining differences were observed. The optimum method thus uses a double-labeling procedure with a final dilution factor of 1:1,000. The study demonstrated that this method meets the criteria for a reference platelet count.

Exercise-induced muscle damage: effect on circulating leukocyte and lymphocyte subsets.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of downhill and level running on circulating leukocyte and lymphocyte subsets and T lymphocyte activation. Using a random cross-over design, 10 runners completed two trials of 60 min of level running (0% grade; LR) and downhill running (-10% grade; DHR) at 70% of level VO2max. Blood samples were obtained preexercise and immediately postexercise (POST) and at 1.5, 12, 24, and 48 h of recovery. Creatine kinase activity peaked at 12 h of recovery from DHR and was not significantly altered following LR. The number of total T, CD16+, CD3+CD56+ cells were significantly higher POST DHR compared with LR. Leukocyte and neutrophil counts were significantly higher at 1.5 and 12 h of recovery from DHR compared with LR. The number of activated CD8+ cells (CD25+ CD8+) was significantly higher at 12 h of DHR compared to LR. Total T cells were significantly reduced at various time points during the 48 h of recovery from LR and DHR. In summary, DHR relative to LR resulted in a greater mobilization of lymphocytes (post), neutrophils (1.5-12 h of recovery) and activation of CD8+ cells at 12 h of recovery. In addition, reductions in circulating T lymphocyte subsets occurred following both conditions.

2006 Bethesda International Consensus recommendations on the flow cytometric immunophenotypic analysis of hematolymphoid neoplasia: Medical indications†

The clinical indications for diagnostic flow cytometry studies are an evolving consensus, as the knowledge of antigenic definition of hematolymphoid malignancies and the prognostic significance of antigen expression evolves. Additionally the standard of care is not routinely communicated to practicing clinicians and diagnostic services, especially as may relate to new technologies. Accordingly there is often uncertainty on the part of clinicians, payers of medical services, diagnostic physicians and scientists as to the appropriate use of diagnostic flow cytometry. In an attempt to communicate contemporary diagnostic utility of immunophenotypic flow cytometry in the diagnosis and follow‐up of patients with hematolymphoid malignancies, the Clinical Cytometry Society organized a two day meeting of international experts in this area to reach a consensus as to this diagnostic tool. This report summarizes the appropriate use of diagnostic flow cytometry as determined by unanimous approval of these experienced practitioners.

Human monocyte CD163 expression inversely correlates with soluble CD163 plasma levels

CD163 is a monocyte/macrophage‐restricted receptor involved in the clearance of hemoglobin–haptoglobin complexes and regulation of inflammatory processes. CD163 is shed from the cell surface and exists as a soluble form in plasma (sCD163). Monocyte CD163 and sCD163 are potential diagnostic tools in variety of disease states.

Improved diagnostic approaches to infection/sepsis detection

Sepsis is a major healthcare problem from the perspective of mortality and economics. Advances in diagnostic detection of infection and sepsis have been slow, but recent advances in both soluble biomarker detection and quantitative cellular measurements promise the availability of improved diagnostic techniques. Though the promise of cytokine measurements reaching clinical practice have not matured, procalcitonin levels are currently available in many countries and appear to offer enhanced diagnostic distinction between bacterial and viral etiologies. Cellular diagnostics is poised to enter clinical laboratory practice in the form of neutrophil CD64 measurements, which offer superior sensitivity and specificity to conventional laboratory assessment of sepsis. Neutrophil CD64 expression is negligible in the healthy state. However, it increases as part of the systemic response to severe infection or sepsis. The combination of cellular proteomics, as in the case of neutrophil CD64 quantification, and selected soluble biomarkers of the inflammatory response, such as procalcitonin or triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (TREM)-1, is predicted to remove the current subjectivity and uncertainty in the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of infection and sepsis.

Comparison of neutrophil CD64 expression, manual myeloid immaturity counts, and automated hematology analyzer flags as indicators of infection or sepsis.

There is a clear need for improved indicators of infection or sepsis to increase the sensitivity and specificity of both diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring. One of the effects of inflammatory cytokines on the innate immune response is the rapid up-regulation of CD64 expression on the neutrophil membrane. We and others have hypothesized that the measurement of neutrophil CD64 expression might represent an improved diagnostic indicator of infection and sepsis. In this study we assessed the relative ability of flow cytometric neutrophil CD64 measurements, neutrophil counts, myeloid immaturity differential counts, and flagging on an automated hematology analyzer to correlate with the presence of infection, as determined by a retrospective clinical scoring system of infection or sepsis. A total of 160 blood samples were randomly selected to derive equal proportions of the 3 categories of flags on a Coulter STKS blood counter that indicate the presence of a myeloid left shift. The patients for these samples were scored by retrospective chart review and placed into 4 groups on the basis of likelihood of infection, sepsis, or severe tissue injury. Neutrophil CD64 expression demonstrated a superior sensitivity (94.1%), specificity (84.9%), and positive predictive likelihood ratio (6.24), compared with neutrophil counts (sensitivity, 79.4%; specificity, 46.8%; positive predictive likelihood ratio, 1.49), band counts (sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 43.5%; positive predictive likelihood ratio, 1.55), myeloid immaturity fraction (sensitivity, 94.6%; specificity, 84.5%; positive predictive likelihood ratio, 2.12), and flagging on an automated hematology analyzer (sensitivity, 94.1%; specificity, 40.5%; positive predictive likelihood ratio, 1.58). Relative to the other laboratory parameters, the neutrophil CD64 parameter also provided the best separation of the 4 clinical groups. The findings indicate that neutrophil CD64 expression as determined by quantitative flow cytometry is an improved diagnostic indicator of infection/sepsis relative to current laboratory indicators of relative or absolute myeloid cell counts or hematology analyzer flagging algorithms.

ICSH guidelines for the evaluation of blood cell analysers including those used for differential leucocyte and reticulocyte counting

This revision is intended to update the 1994 ICSH guidelines. It is based on those guidelines but is updated to include new methods, such as digital image analysis for blood cells, a flow cytometric method intended to replace the reference manual 400 cell differential, and numerous new cell indices not identified morphologically are introduced. Haematology analysers are becoming increasingly complex and with technological advancements in instrumentation with more and more quantitative parameters are being reported in the complete blood count. It is imperative therefore that before an instrument is used for testing patient samples, it must undergo an evaluation by an organization or laboratory independent of the manufacturer. The evaluation should demonstrate the performance, advantages and limitations of instruments and methods. These evaluations may be performed by an accredited haematology laboratory where the results are published in a peer‐reviewed journal and compared with the validations performed by the manufacturer. A less extensive validation/transference of the equipment or method should be performed by the local laboratory on instruments prior to reporting of results.