Favaloro Emmanuel J, Wong Richard C W, Silvestrini Roger, McEvoy Robert, Jovanovich Susan, Roberts-Thomson Peter
Haemostasis Laboratories, Department of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Walls, Australia.
Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005 Feb;31(1):73-84. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-863808.
We evaluated the performance of anticardiolipin (aCL) and beta2-glycoprotein I (beta2-GPI) antibody assays through a large external quality assurance program. Data from the 2002 cycle of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPA QAP) were analyzed for variation in reported numerical values and semiquantitative results or interpretations according to method type or group and in conjunction with available clinical data. High interlaboratory variation in numerical results and notable method-based variation, combined with a general lack of consensus in semiquantitative reporting, continues to be observed. Numerical results from cross-laboratory testing of 12 serum samples (for immunoglobulin G [IgG]-aCL, IgM-aCL, and IgG-beta2-GPI) yielded interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CVs) that were higher than 50% in six of 12 (50%) specimens for IgG-aCL, and 12 of 12 (100%) specimens for IgM-aCL and IgG-beta2-GPI. Semiquantitative reporting also varied considerably, with total (100%) consensus occurring in only four of 36 (11%) occasions. General consensus (where > 90% of participating laboratories agreed that a given serum sample gave a result of either negative or positive) was only obtained on 13 of 36 (36%) occasions. Variation in results between different method types or groups were also present, resulting in potential biasing of the RCPA QAP-defined target results by the large number of laboratories using the dominant aCL assays. Finally, laboratory findings frequently did not agree with the available clinical information. In conclusion, in a large proportion of specimens from the 2002 RCPA QAP cycle, laboratories could not agree on whether a serum sample tested was aCL-positive or aCL-negative, or beta2-GPI-positive or beta2-GPI-negative. Despite prior attempts to improve the standardization of testing and reporting practices, laboratory testing for aCL and anti-beta2-GPI still demonstrates significant interlaboratory and intermethod variation, which needs to be taken into account for the clinical interpretation of test results, especially those from different laboratories.
我们通过一项大型外部质量保证计划评估了抗心磷脂(aCL)和β2-糖蛋白I(β2-GPI)抗体检测的性能。对澳大拉西亚皇家病理学家学院质量保证计划(RCPA QAP)2002年周期的数据进行了分析,以了解报告的数值以及根据方法类型或组别划分的半定量结果或解读的差异,并结合现有的临床数据进行分析。实验室间数值结果的高度差异以及基于方法的显著差异,再加上半定量报告普遍缺乏一致性,这些情况仍在持续被观察到。对12份血清样本(针对免疫球蛋白G [IgG]-aCL、IgM-aCL和IgG-β2-GPI)进行跨实验室检测得到的数值结果显示,在12份(50%)标本中,有6份标本的IgG-aCL实验室间变异系数(CVs)高于50%,而IgM-aCL和IgG-β2-GPI的12份(100%)标本均如此。半定量报告也存在很大差异,在36次检测中,仅有4次(11%)出现完全(100%)一致的情况。一般一致性(即超过90%的参与实验室认为给定血清样本的检测结果为阴性或阳性)仅在36次检测中的13次(36%)出现。不同方法类型或组别之间的结果差异也存在,这导致大量使用占主导地位的aCL检测方法的实验室可能会使RCPA QAP定义的目标结果产生偏差。最后,实验室检测结果常常与现有的临床信息不一致。总之,在2002年RCPA QAP周期的很大一部分标本中,实验室对于所检测的血清样本是aCL阳性还是aCL阴性,或者是β2-GPI阳性还是β2-GPI阴性无法达成一致。尽管此前曾尝试改进检测和报告操作的标准化,但aCL和抗β2-GPI的实验室检测仍显示出显著的实验室间和方法间差异,在对检测结果进行临床解读时,尤其是来自不同实验室的结果时,需要考虑到这些差异。