Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories

Elizabeth M. Van Cott, Kristi J. Smock, Dong Chen, Peihong Hsu, Nicole D. Zantek, Piet Meijer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are among the newest anticoagulants, and measuring their concentration in patients is a new challenge for clinical laboratories. We analyzed data from the ECAT proficiency program to determine how well the assays are performing in clinical laboratories internationally. Most laboratories received a passing grade (Z score <3) for the results of their dabigatran and rivaroxaban testing. Failing Z scores were not associated with any particular method. With dabigatran, some homemade calibrators gave higher results than the commercially available calibrators. There were no significant differences among the instruments or the 5 reagents in use, but results showed inter-laboratory variability that could have clinical significance. The 3 reagents with the lowest number of users had poor inter-laboratory precision. Ten different anti-Xa reagents were in use for rivaroxaban testing. One reagent gave lower results than other reagents at 100 ng/mL but not at 300 ng/mL. There were no significant differences among the different rivaroxaban calibrators or instruments. In conclusion, inter-laboratory precision could be improved for both dabigatran and rivaroxaban assays. Homemade dabigatran calibrators differed from commercially available calibrators, and there was a statistically significant difference between some of the rivaroxaban reagents. About 10% of results received failing Z scores or passed but fell in a range that require the laboratory to investigate for bias or other inaccuracy in their method. Am. J. Hematol. 91:E464–E467, 2016.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E464-E467
JournalAmerican Journal of Hematology
Volume91
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Dabigatran
Rivaroxaban
Anticoagulants

Cite this

Van Cott, E. M., Smock, K. J., Chen, D., Hsu, P., Zantek, N. D., & Meijer, P. (2016). Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories. American Journal of Hematology, 91(11), E464-E467. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24494

Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories. / Van Cott, Elizabeth M.; Smock, Kristi J.; Chen, Dong; Hsu, Peihong; Zantek, Nicole D.; Meijer, Piet.

In: American Journal of Hematology, Vol. 91, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. E464-E467.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Cott, EM, Smock, KJ, Chen, D, Hsu, P, Zantek, ND & Meijer, P 2016, 'Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories', American Journal of Hematology, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. E464-E467. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24494
Van Cott, Elizabeth M. ; Smock, Kristi J. ; Chen, Dong ; Hsu, Peihong ; Zantek, Nicole D. ; Meijer, Piet. / Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories. In: American Journal of Hematology. 2016 ; Vol. 91, No. 11. pp. E464-E467.
@article{746793fefebf4226901d722fad863921,
title = "Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories",
abstract = "Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are among the newest anticoagulants, and measuring their concentration in patients is a new challenge for clinical laboratories. We analyzed data from the ECAT proficiency program to determine how well the assays are performing in clinical laboratories internationally. Most laboratories received a passing grade (Z score <3) for the results of their dabigatran and rivaroxaban testing. Failing Z scores were not associated with any particular method. With dabigatran, some homemade calibrators gave higher results than the commercially available calibrators. There were no significant differences among the instruments or the 5 reagents in use, but results showed inter-laboratory variability that could have clinical significance. The 3 reagents with the lowest number of users had poor inter-laboratory precision. Ten different anti-Xa reagents were in use for rivaroxaban testing. One reagent gave lower results than other reagents at 100 ng/mL but not at 300 ng/mL. There were no significant differences among the different rivaroxaban calibrators or instruments. In conclusion, inter-laboratory precision could be improved for both dabigatran and rivaroxaban assays. Homemade dabigatran calibrators differed from commercially available calibrators, and there was a statistically significant difference between some of the rivaroxaban reagents. About 10{\%} of results received failing Z scores or passed but fell in a range that require the laboratory to investigate for bias or other inaccuracy in their method. Am. J. Hematol. 91:E464–E467, 2016.",
author = "{Van Cott}, {Elizabeth M.} and Smock, {Kristi J.} and Dong Chen and Peihong Hsu and Zantek, {Nicole D.} and Piet Meijer",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ajh.24494",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "E464--E467",
journal = "American Journal of Hematology",
issn = "0361-8609",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing for dabigatran and rivaroxaban by clinical laboratories

AU - Van Cott, Elizabeth M.

AU - Smock, Kristi J.

AU - Chen, Dong

AU - Hsu, Peihong

AU - Zantek, Nicole D.

AU - Meijer, Piet

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are among the newest anticoagulants, and measuring their concentration in patients is a new challenge for clinical laboratories. We analyzed data from the ECAT proficiency program to determine how well the assays are performing in clinical laboratories internationally. Most laboratories received a passing grade (Z score <3) for the results of their dabigatran and rivaroxaban testing. Failing Z scores were not associated with any particular method. With dabigatran, some homemade calibrators gave higher results than the commercially available calibrators. There were no significant differences among the instruments or the 5 reagents in use, but results showed inter-laboratory variability that could have clinical significance. The 3 reagents with the lowest number of users had poor inter-laboratory precision. Ten different anti-Xa reagents were in use for rivaroxaban testing. One reagent gave lower results than other reagents at 100 ng/mL but not at 300 ng/mL. There were no significant differences among the different rivaroxaban calibrators or instruments. In conclusion, inter-laboratory precision could be improved for both dabigatran and rivaroxaban assays. Homemade dabigatran calibrators differed from commercially available calibrators, and there was a statistically significant difference between some of the rivaroxaban reagents. About 10% of results received failing Z scores or passed but fell in a range that require the laboratory to investigate for bias or other inaccuracy in their method. Am. J. Hematol. 91:E464–E467, 2016.

AB - Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are among the newest anticoagulants, and measuring their concentration in patients is a new challenge for clinical laboratories. We analyzed data from the ECAT proficiency program to determine how well the assays are performing in clinical laboratories internationally. Most laboratories received a passing grade (Z score <3) for the results of their dabigatran and rivaroxaban testing. Failing Z scores were not associated with any particular method. With dabigatran, some homemade calibrators gave higher results than the commercially available calibrators. There were no significant differences among the instruments or the 5 reagents in use, but results showed inter-laboratory variability that could have clinical significance. The 3 reagents with the lowest number of users had poor inter-laboratory precision. Ten different anti-Xa reagents were in use for rivaroxaban testing. One reagent gave lower results than other reagents at 100 ng/mL but not at 300 ng/mL. There were no significant differences among the different rivaroxaban calibrators or instruments. In conclusion, inter-laboratory precision could be improved for both dabigatran and rivaroxaban assays. Homemade dabigatran calibrators differed from commercially available calibrators, and there was a statistically significant difference between some of the rivaroxaban reagents. About 10% of results received failing Z scores or passed but fell in a range that require the laboratory to investigate for bias or other inaccuracy in their method. Am. J. Hematol. 91:E464–E467, 2016.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991801205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991801205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ajh.24494

DO - 10.1002/ajh.24494

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - E464-E467

JO - American Journal of Hematology

JF - American Journal of Hematology

SN - 0361-8609

IS - 11

ER -