UK NEQAS Haematology pilot scheme: Reticulocyte haemoglobin content quantitation.

INTRODUCTION: Established parameters for the investigation of suspected iron deficiency have recognized limitations that affect their sensitivity and specificity. Reticulocyte haemoglobin content (RHC) is an early biomarker of iron deficiency or restriction, which also demonstrates response to iron therapy. RHC parameters are offered on all major automated haematology analysers. There is no external quality assessment (EQA) for RHC in the UK, restricting its wider clinical application. The UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UKNEQAS) for Haematology has completed a pilot study on the use of stabilized blood for RHC EQA. METHODS: Blood was obtained from two JAK2 V617F mutation-positive, polycythaemia vera patients undergoing regular venesection, and from a healthy volunteer donor. Aliquots of each donation were distributed to users of Abbott, Horiba, Siemens and Sysmex automated analysers for RHC analysis on days 1, 3, 5 and 7. RESULTS: Results were received from 20 laboratories using four different platforms. The daily mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for each aliquot, by day of analysis and platform. With RHC there was no significant within-platform difference (p > 0.5) between testing days, although there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between different platforms. The greatest difference was seen between Abbott MCHr and Horiba RhCc (-6.14 ± 1.25 pg). Despite inter-platform differences, it was possible to define iron deficient, borderline, and normal cut-offs to classify 95% of results correctly. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that it is possible to provide RHC EQA material using UKNEQAS standard procedures. The results are clinically relevant but indicate a requirement for inter-user comparison.

The accuracy of platelet counting in thrombocytopenic blood samples distributed by the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for General Haematology.

A knowledge of the limitations of automated platelet counting is essential for the effective care of thrombocytopenic patients and management of platelet stocks for transfusion. For this study, 29 external quality assessment specimen pools with platelet counts between 5 and 64 × 10(9)/L were distributed to more than 1,100 users of 23 different hematology analyzer models. The same specimen pools were analyzed by the international reference method (IRM) for platelet counting at 3 reference centers. The IRM values were on average lower than the all-methods median values returned by the automated analyzers. The majority (~67%) of the automated analyzer results overestimated the platelet count compared with the IRM, with significant differences in 16.5% of cases. Performance differed between analyzer models. The observed differences may depend in part on the nature of the survey material and analyzer technology, but the findings have implications for the interpretation of platelet counts at levels of clinical decision making.