Evaluation of the Sysmex pocH-1001 haematology analyser in an outdoor oncology service

Analytical Performance Evaluation of Three Point-of-Care CBC Analyzers for Management of Clozapine Therapy in Ambulatory Psychiatry Clinics

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is a first-line therapy and the only FDA-approved drug for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). However, frequent measurement of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is required to monitor for potential adverse severe neutropenia from clozapine therapy. We evaluated 3 point-of-care (POC) instruments that perform the complete blood count (CBC) with differential to assess their analytical performance and potential to meet the clinical need for clozapine therapy management.

METHODS

A CBC with differential was performed on 104 residual whole blood specimens using 3 CBC analyzers (Sight OLO, PixCell HemoScreen, and Sysmex pocH-100i) to assess analytical precision, linearity, and accuracy vs the ADVIA 2120i and manual differential reference methods. Clinical concordance of ANC between POC devices and manual differential at medical decision points for mild, moderate, or severe neutropenia, and the threshold for clozapine therapy discontinuation (1.0 × 109/L) were determined.

RESULTS

For CBC parameters, a CV ≤ 6.4% was observed on the OLO, CV ≤ 6.2% for the HemoScreen, and CV ≤ 5.1% with the pocH-100i. Each device accurately identified ANC with the greatest mean bias ±0.42 × 109/L using the pocH-100i vs manual differential. For results near the medical decision points (ANC <1.5 × 109/L), clinical concordance of ANC results was 55.6% for the OLO, 89.5% for the HemoScreen, and 82.4% for the pocH-100i.

CONCLUSIONS

The HemoScreen device demonstrated the best clinical concordance in ANC values at medical decision thresholds for clozapine therapy management.

Impact of Interfacing Near Point of Care Clinical Chemistry and Hematology Analyzers at Urgent Care Clinics at an Academic Health System

Background

Point-of-care (POC) testing equipment is commonly utilized in outpatient clinics. Our institution recently interfaced POC chemistry and hematology devices at two outpatient clinics via middleware software to the central electronic health record (EHR), facilitating a comparison of manual transcription versus automatic reporting via interface. This allowed for estimation of serious/obvious error rates and manual time savings. Additional goals were to develop autoverification rules and analyze broad trends of results in response to common clinician complaints on the POC testing.

Material and Methods

Data were obtained from two satellite clinic sites providing both primary and urgent care within an academic health system. Interface of devices was accomplished via Instrument Manager middleware software and occurred approximately halfway through the 38 month retrospective timeframe. Laboratory results for three testing POC chemistry and hematology panels were extracted with EHR tools.

Results

Nearly 100,000 lab values were analyzed and revealed that the rate of laboratory values outside reference range was essentially unchanged before and after interface of POC testing devices (2.0–2.1%). Serious/obvious errors, while rare overall, declined significantly, with none recorded after the interface with autoverified results and only three related to manual edits of results that failed autoverification. Fewer duplicated test results were identified after the interface, most notably with the hematology testing. Anion gap values of less than zero were observed more frequently in POC device tests when compared to central laboratory tests and are attributed to a higher proportion of Cl values greater than 110 mEq/L and CO₂ values greater than 30 mEq/L with POC results. Time savings of eliminating manual data entry were calculated to be 21.6 employee hours per month.

Conclusions

In a switch from manual entry to automatic interface for POC chemistry and hematology, the most notable changes were reduction of serious/obvious errors and duplicate results. Significant time employee time savings highlight an additional benefit of instrument interfacing. Lastly, a difference between POC and central laboratory instruments is a higher rate of high Cl and CO₂ values relative to the central laboratory.

C-reactive protein and neutrophil count laboratory test requests from primary care: what is the demand and would substitution by point-of-care technology be viable?

AIMS : C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil count (NC) are important diagnostic indicators of inflammation. Point-of-care (POC) technologies for these markers are available but rarely used in community settings in the UK. To inform the potential for POC tests, it is necessary to understand the demand for testing. We aimed to describe the frequency of CRP and NC test requests from primary care to central laboratory services, describe variability between practices and assess the relationship between the tests.

METHODS

We described the number of patients with either or both laboratory tests, and the volume of testing per individual and per practice, in a retrospective cohort of all adults in general practices in Oxfordshire, 2014-2016.

RESULTS

372 017 CRP and 776 581 NC tests in 160 883 and 275 093 patients, respectively, were requested from 69 practices. CRP was tested mainly in combination with NC, while the latter was more often tested alone. The median (IQR) of CRP and NC tests/person tested was 1 (1-2) and 2 (1-3), respectively. The median (IQR) tests/practice/week was 36 (22-52) and 72 (50-108), and per 1000 persons registered/practice/week was 4 (3-5) and 8 (7-9), respectively. The median (IQR) CRP and NC concentrations were 2.7 (0.9-7.9) mg/dL and 4.1 (3.1-5.5)×10⁹/L, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high demand for CRP and NC testing in the community, and the range of results falling within the reportable range for current POC technologies highlight the opportunity for laboratory testing to be supplemented by POC testing in general practice.

Performance evaluation of the Sysmex(®) XP-300 in an oncology setting: evaluation and comparison of hematological parameters with the Sysmex(®) XN-3000

INTRODUCTION

The Sysmex XP-300(®) (XP-300) is a new, fully automated hematology analyzer, designed to generate complete blood counts (CBC) with 3-part differential. In our study, the XP-300 was evaluated as a point-of-care (POC) analyzer in an oncology setting. In which blood samples from patients with different pathologies and treatments, affecting hematopoiesis, were analyzed.

METHODS

Performance was evaluated according to the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) guidelines and CLSI protocol H20-A2 . Beside precision, linearity and carry-over, a comparison study with the Sysmex(®) XN-3000 (XN-3000) and a manual reference leukocyte differential was performed. Flagging performance was also evaluated.

RESULTS

XP-300 showed excellent precision and linearity results. For within- and between-run precision, the criteria, according to Ricos et al. , were met for all parameters tested, except for platelets in the low level. Less than or equal to 0.5% carry-over was seen for all parameters tested. Comparison studies showed an acceptable correlation with both XN-3000 and the manual reference leukocyte count. A suboptimal flagging performance was demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

In the context of diagnosing cytopenia due to myelosuppressing agents or leukocytosis due to infection, the XP-300 showed good analytical performance. However, in the thrombocytopenic range, precision was suboptimal. In follow-up of hematological malignancies with the occurrence of abnormal cells, we advise verification with a more advanced analyzer or with microscopic review, although further studies with a higher prevalence of abnormal cells are needed.