A New Method for the Measurement of International Normalized Ratio in Hemodialysis Patients with Heparin-Locked Tunneled Dialysis Catheters.

BACKGROUND: To measure International Normalized Ratio (INR) in hemodialysis patients with tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs), blood sampling is frequently obtained via the catheter at the start of the session. INR measurements via finger-prick point of care testing (POCT) and via blood sampling taken from the dialysis circuit are evaluated as alternatives. METHODS: In 14 hemodialysis patients with TDCs, treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA), INR measurements via POCT were compared with plasma INR samples taken via the catheter at the start of dialysis and via the dialysis circuit after 30 and 60 minutes during 3 nonconsecutive dialysis sessions. RESULTS: Blood samples taken at the start of dialysis at the catheter site were frequently contaminated with heparin originating from the locking solution (unfractionated heparin concentration (UFH) >1.0 IU/ml in 13.2%). POCT INR at the start of dialysis was not different from plasma INR after 30 and 60 minutes (Wilcoxon test p=0.113, n = 37, and p=0.631, n = 36, respectively). Moreover, there was no difference between POCT INR at the start of dialysis and POCT INR after 30 and 60 minutes (Wilcoxon test p=0.797 and p = 0.801, respectively; n = 36). Passing and Bablok regression equation was used, y = 0.460 + 0.733x; n = 105. Treatment decisions based on these 2 methods showed a very good overall agreement (kappa = 0.810; 95% CI: 0.732-0.889; n = 105). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring plasma INR via the TDC at the start of dialysis should be abandoned. Measuring POCT INR via a finger prick at the start or even after 30 to 60 minutes is an alternative. The most elegant alternative is to take plasma INR samples via the dialysis circuit 30 minutes or later after the start of the dialysis.

Solid phase assays versus automated indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antinuclear antibodies.

Solid phase assays (SPAs) and automated microscope systems are increasingly used to screen for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of three automated ANA screening assays; NOVA Lite HEp-2 using NOVA View® (NV, Inova Diagnostics), an automated indirect immunofluorescence method, EliA™ CTD Screen (Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay, FEIA; Thermo Fisher) and QUANTA Flash® CTD Screen Plus (Chemiluminescence immunoassay, CIA; Inova Diagnostics). The assays were performed on 480 diagnostic samples from patients with an ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD; systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren's syndrome, systemic sclerosis, inflammatory myopathy, mixed connective tissue disease) and on 767 samples from diseased and healthy controls. Using cut-offs proposed by the manufacturers, the sensitivity was 95%, 80.5% and 86% for NV, FEIA and CIA, respectively. The corresponding specificity was 61% (NV), 97.5% (FEIA) and 88% (CIA). The sensitivity associated with a specificity of ~95% was 79%, 82% and 78% for NV, FEIA, and CIA, respectively. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis revealed no differences in area under the curve (AUC) between the 3 assays when all diseases were grouped. For Sjögren's syndrome, the AUC was higher for SPAs than for NV, whereas for systemic sclerosis, the AUC was higher for NV than for CIA. For all assays, the likelihood ratio for AARD increased with increasing antibody levels and for double positivity of NV with SPA. In conclusion, the performance of automated SPA and IIF was assay- and disease-dependent. Taking into account antibody levels and combining IIF with SPA adds value.

Screening for connective tissue disease-associated antibodies by automated immunoassay.

BACKGROUND: Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are useful for the diagnosis of ANA-associated systemic rheumatic disease (AASRD). The objective of this study was the evaluation of an immunoassay that detects antibodies to a mixture of 17 antigens as an alternative to indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). METHODS: Nine thousand eight hundred and fifty-six consecutive patients tested for ANAs were tested by IIF and EliA connective tissue disease screen (Thermo-Fisher). Medical records were reviewed for 2475 patients, including all patients that tested positive/equivocal by either test and a selection of 500 patients that tested negative. RESULTS: Concordance between IIF and EliA was 83.1%. AASRD was found in 12.8% of IIF-positive patients, 30.2% of EliA-positive patients and 0.4%, 46.6%, 5.8% and 3.0% of patients that tested, respectively, double negative, double positive, single positive for EliA and single positive for IIF. The association with AASRD increased with increasing antibody level. IIF and EliA were positive in, respectively, 90.4% and 69.9% of systemic lupus erythematosus (n=83), 100% and 84.1% of systemic sclerosis (n=63), 86.7% and 93.3% of Sjögren's syndrome (n=45), 88.2% and 52.9% of polymyositis/dermatomyositis (n=17), and in all cases of mixed connective tissue disease (n=8). The specificity was projected to be 94%-96% for EliA and 86% for IIF. When all AASRDs were taken together, the areas under the curve of receiver operator curves were similar between IIF and EliA. CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value for AASRD was higher for EliA than for IIF, but, depending on the disease, EliA might fail to detect antibodies that are detected by IIF. Combining immunoassay with IIF adds value.

Does Extremely Low Birth Weight Predispose to Low-Renin Hypertension?

Low birth weight and prematurity are risk factors for hypertension in adulthood. Few studies in preterm or full-term born children reported on plasma renin activity (PRA). We tested the hypothesis that renin might modulate the incidence of hypertension associated with prematurity. We enrolled 93 prematurely born children with birth weight <1000 g and 87 healthy controls born at term, who were all examined at ≈11 years. Renal length and glomerular filtration rate derived from serum cystatin C were 0.28 cm (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.47) and 11.5 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (6.4-16.6) lower in cases, whereas their systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) was 7.5 mm Hg (4.8-10.3)/4.0 mm Hg (2.1-5.8) higher (P<0.001 for all). The odds of having systolic prehypertension or systolic hypertension associated with extreme low birth weight were 6.43 (2.52-16.4; P<0.001) and 10.9 (2.46-48.4; P=0.002). Twenty-four hours of urinary sodium excretion was similar in cases and controls (102.1 versus 106.8 mmol; P=0.47). Sodium load per nephron was estimated as sodium excretion divided by kidney length (mmol/cm). PRA was 0.54 ng/mL per hour (0.23-0.85; P=0.001) lower in cases. PRA, systolic BP, and sodium load were available in 43 cases and 56 controls. PRA decreased with systolic BP (slope -0.022 ng/mL per hour/-mm Hg; P=0.048), but was unrelated to sodium load (slope +0.13 mmol/cm-mm Hg; P=0.54). The slope of PRA on systolic BP was similar (P=0.17) in cases and controls. In conclusion, extremely low birth weight predisposes young adolescents to low-renin hypertension, but does not affect the inverse association between PRA and BP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02147457.

Case report of a false positive result of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.

In the present case, we report a false positive result for the detection of rifampicin (RIF) resistance by the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay, version G4.Miliary Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (miliary TB) was suspected in a 50-year old Angolan woman. Imaging of the thorax and abdomen displayed diffuse lesions. The Xpert® MTB/RIF assay conducted on the broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was positive for TB and positive for RIF resistance. Confirmatory molecular tests and the phenotypic drug susceptibility determination supported the diagnosis of TB but not RIF resistance. The patient was treated successfully with a conventional therapeutic scheme. Because, the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay allows the simultaneous detection of TB and RIF resistance, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends its use as initial diagnostic test, over microscopy, culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing. Even though specificity of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay version G4 is high, false positive test results remain possible and have to be considered for the interpretation of the RIF resistance detection by Xpert® MTB/RIF assay.