Variability of anti-PF4/heparin antibody results obtained by the rapid testing system ID-H/PF4-PaGIA

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that a low clinical pretest probability may be adequate for excluding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, for patients with intermediate or high pretest probability, laboratory testing is essential for confirming or refuting the diagnosis. Rapid assessment of anti-PF4/heparin-antibodies may assist clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of rapid ID-H/PF4-PaGIA. In particular, we verified reproducibility of results between plasma and serum specimens, between fresh and frozen samples, and between different ID-H/PF4-polymer lots (polystyrene beads coated with heparin/PF4-complexes). PATIENTS/METHODS: The samples studied were 1376 plasma and 914 corresponding serum samples from patients investigated for suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia between January 2000 and October 2008. Anti-PF4/heparin-antibodies were assessed by ID-H/PF4-PaGIA, commercially available ELISAs and heparin-induced platelet aggregation test. RESULTS: Among 914 paired plasma/serum samples we noted discordant results (negative vs. low-titre positive) in nine instances (1%; 95%CI, 0.4-1.6%). Overall, agreement between titres assessed in plasma vs. serum was highly significant (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.975; P < 0.0001). Forty-seven samples tested both fresh and after freezing/thawing showed a good agreement, with one discordant positive/negative result (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.970; P < 0.0001). Among 1376 plasma samples we noted a strikingly variable incidence of false negative results (none - 82%; 95%CI, 66-98%), depending on the employed ID-H/PF4-polymer lot. Faulty lots can be recognized by titrating commercial positive controls and stored samples of HIT-patients. CONCLUSION: Laboratories performing the assay should implement stringent internal quality controls in order to recognize potentially faulty ID-H/PF4-polymer lots, thus avoiding false negative results.

Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement

Molecular data are now widely used in epidemiological studies to investigate the transmission, distribution, biology, and diversity of pathogens. Our objective was to establish recommendations to support good scientific reporting of molecular epidemiological studies to encourage authors to consider specific threats to valid inference. The statement Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) builds upon the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative. The STROME-ID statement was developed by a working group of epidemiologists, statisticians, bioinformaticians, virologists, and microbiologists with expertise in control of infection and communicable diseases. The statement focuses on issues relating to the reporting of epidemiological studies of infectious diseases using molecular data that were not addressed by STROBE. STROME-ID addresses terminology, measures of genetic diversity within pathogen populations, laboratory methods, sample collection, use of molecular markers, molecular clocks, timeframe, multiple-strain infections, non-independence of infectious-disease data, missing data, ascertainment bias, consistency between molecular and epidemiological data, and ethical considerations with respect to infectious-disease research. In total, 20 items were added to the 22 item STROBE checklist. When used, the STROME-ID recommendations should advance the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, with clear benefits for evidence reviews and health-policy decision making.