External quality assessment providers' services appear to more impact the immunohaematology performance of laboratories than national regulatory and economic conditions.

OBJECTIVES: Medical laboratories may, at their own discretion, exceed but not undercut regulatory quality requirements. Available economic resources, however, may drive or hinder eagerness to exceed minimum requirements. Depending on the respective scopes of regulatory and economic framework conditions, differing levels of quality efforts to safeguard laboratory performance can be anticipated. However, this has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Immunohaematology external quality assessment (EQA) results collected by 26 EQA providers from their participant laboratories in 73 countries from 2004 to 2019 were evaluated. Error rates were aggregated in groups according to the respective national regulatory and economic framework conditions, to whether or not expert advice was provided in case of incorrect results, and the frequency of EQA samples. RESULTS: These representative data indicate no association between national regulatory (mandatory participation in EQA, monitoring of performance of individual laboratories by authorities, financial consequences of incorrect results) and economic (level of national income, share of national health expenditure) conditions to the quality performance of medical laboratories in immunohaematology. However, EQA providers' support for laboratories in the event of incorrect results appear to be associated with lower error rates, but a high EQA sample frequency with higher error rates. CONCLUSIONS: Further research into the impact of introducing or changing services of EQA providers is needed to confirm the results found in this first of its kind study.

Laboratory assessment of novel oral anticoagulants: method suitability and variability between coagulation laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory tests to assess novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are under evaluation. Routine monitoring is unnecessary, but under special circumstances bioactivity assessment becomes crucial. We analyzed the effects of NOACs on coagulation tests and the availability of specific assays at different laboratories. METHODS: Plasma samples spiked with dabigatran (Dabi; 120 and 300 µg/L) or rivaroxaban (Riva; 60, 146, and 305 µg/L) were sent to 115 and 38 European laboratories, respectively. International normalized ratio (INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were analyzed for all samples; thrombin time (TT) was analyzed specifically for Dabi and calibrated anti-activated factor X (anti-Xa) activity for Riva. We compared the results with patient samples. RESULTS: Results of Dabi samples were reported by 73 laboratories (13 INR and 9 APTT reagents) and Riva samples by 22 laboratories (5 INR and 4 APTT reagents). Both NOACs increased INR values; the increase was modest, albeit larger, for Dabi, with higher CV, especially with Quick (vs Owren) methods. Both NOACs dose-dependently prolonged the APTT. Again, the prolongation and CVs were larger for Dabi. The INR and APTT results varied reagent-dependently (P < 0.005), with less prolongation in patient samples. TT results (Dabi) and calibrated anti-Xa results (Riva) were reported by only 11 and 8 laboratories, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The screening tests INR and APTT are suboptimal in assessing NOACs, having high reagent dependence and low sensitivity and specificity. They may provide information, if laboratories recognize their limitations. The variation will likely increase and the sensitivity differ in clinical samples. Specific assays measure NOACs accurately; however, few laboratories applied them.