Long, Thomas A.

Abstract Measurement of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, is crucial for diagnosing thrombotic and fibrinolytic conditions. Despite its expanding utility, D-dimer testing faces challenges due to varying assay methodologies and nonstandardized reporting. To understand D-dimer reporting practices, the College of American Pathologists Hemostasis and Thrombosis Committee analyzed proficiency testing data from D-dimer surveys conducted between 2020 and 2023 across multiple laboratories. The data demonstrate that laboratories commonly report units that differ from the assay package insert when reporting their proficiency testing results. We sought to assess variability in reporting practices and opportunities for improvement in D-dimer reporting amongst participants. To accomplish this, we harmonized all D-dimer results to ng/mL fibrinogen equivalent units from one distributed sample and assessed distinct populations of entries per instrument/reagent combination. Notable trends emerged from this analysis. Data from laboratories using the same instrument/reagent combinations clustered around different means, suggesting issues with unit reporting and/or conversion. Entries reported in mg/L or ug/mL D-dimer units commonly exhibited significant deviations from the dominant population. For one instrument/reagent combination, most reported values differed by approximately twice the certificate of analysis value. This analysis highlights potential issues with D-dimer reporting in proficiency testing. Whether these issues translate into issues with clinical D-dimer reporting requires further study.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

Context.— As pharmacogenetic testing is incorporated into routine care, it is essential for laboratories to provide accurate and consistent results. Certified laboratories must successfully complete proficiency testing. Objectives.— To understand and examine trends in participation and performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing surveys. Design.— Results from College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing challenges from 2012 through 2017 were reviewed for concordance with expected genotype and phenotype for each sample (intended responses). Results.— Laboratories correctly reported results for 96.7% to 100% of samples with no variants. Excluding CYP2D6, laboratories correctly detected and reported variant alleles for each gene (93.7%–99.2% correct). CYP2D6 showed lower concordance, with 83.1% of laboratories reporting the intended genotype across all samples; however, in many cases, the laboratories that did not report a variant allele did not test for that allele. Among laboratories reporting the intended genotype, most successfully reported the intended phenotype (85.9%–99.0%). Conclusions.— Although laboratories are generally performing well, there is room for additional improvement, particularly for challenging genes, such as CYP2D6. Efforts in the field of pharmacogenomics to recommend alleles that should be included in clinical tests, identify reference materials, and standardize translation from genotype to phenotype may address some of the remaining variability in results.