ASVCP guidelines: Allowable total error hematology

The purpose of this document is to provide total allowable error (TE_a) recommendations for commonly analyzed hematology measurands for veterinary personnel. These guidelines define relevant terminology and highlight considerations specific to hematology measurands. They also provide reasons and guidelines for using TE_a in instrument performance evaluation, including recommendations for when the total observed error exceeds the recommended TE_a. Biological variation‐based quality specifications are briefly discussed. The appendix describes the derivation of the hematology TE_a recommendations and provides resources for external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs and a worksheet for implementation of the guidelines.     

ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for point‐of‐care testing in veterinary medicine

Point‐of‐care testing (POCT) refers to any laboratory testing performed outside the conventional reference laboratory and implies close proximity to patients. Instrumental POCT systems consist of small, handheld or benchtop analyzers. These have potential utility in many veterinary settings, including private clinics, academic veterinary medical centers, the community (eg, remote area veterinary medical teams), and for research applications in academia, government, and industry. Concern about the quality of veterinary in‐clinic testing has been expressed in published veterinary literature; however, little guidance focusing on POCT is available. Recognizing this void, the ASVCP formed a subcommittee in 2009 charged with developing quality assurance (QA) guidelines for veterinary POCT. Guidelines were developed through literature review and a consensus process. Major recommendations include (1) taking a formalized approach to POCT within the facility, (2) use of written policies, standard operating procedures, forms, and logs, (3) operator training, including periodic assessment of skills, (4) assessment of instrument analytical performance and use of both statistical quality control and external quality assessment programs, (5) use of properly established or validated reference intervals, (6) and ensuring accurate patient results reporting. Where possible, given instrument analytical performance, use of a validated 1_3s control rule for interpretation of control data is recommended. These guidelines are aimed at veterinarians and veterinary technicians seeking to improve management of POCT in their clinical or research setting, and address QA of small chemistry and hematology instruments. These guidelines are not intended to be all‐inclusive; rather, they provide a minimum standard for maintenance of POCT instruments in the veterinary setting.     

ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of general analytical factors in veterinary laboratories

Owing to lack of governmental regulation of veterinary laboratory performance, veterinarians ideally should demonstrate a commitment to self-monitoring and regulation of laboratory performance from within the profession. In response to member concerns about quality management in veterinary laboratories, the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) formed a Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards (QAS) committee in 1996. This committee recently published updated and peer-reviewed Quality Assurance Guidelines on the ASVCP website. The Quality Assurance Guidelines are intended for use by veterinary diagnostic laboratories and veterinary research laboratories that are not covered by the US Food and Drug Administration Good Laboratory Practice standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 58). The guidelines have been divided into 3 reports on 1) general analytic factors for veterinary laboratory performance and comparisons, 2) hematology and hemostasis, and 3) clinical chemistry, endocrine assessment, and urinalysis. This report documents recommendations for control of general analytical factors within veterinary clinical laboratories and is based on section 2.1 (Analytical Factors Important In Veterinary Clinical Pathology, General) of the newly revised ASVCP QAS Guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide minimum guidelines for quality assurance and quality control for veterinary laboratory testing. It is hoped that these guidelines will provide a basis for laboratories to assess their current practices, determine areas for improvement, and guide continuing professional development and education efforts.     

ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors for urinalysis, cytology, and clinical chemistry in veterinary laboratories

In December 2009, the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards committee published the updated and peer-reviewed ASVCP Quality Assurance Guidelines on the Society's website. These guidelines are intended for use by veterinary diagnostic laboratories and veterinary research laboratories that are not covered by the US Food and Drug Administration Good Laboratory Practice standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 58). The guidelines have been divided into 3 reports: (1) general analytical factors for veterinary laboratory performance and comparisons; (2) hematology, hemostasis, and crossmatching; and (3) clinical chemistry, cytology, and urinalysis. This particular report is one of 3 reports and documents recommendations for control of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors related to urinalysis, cytology, and clinical chemistry in veterinary laboratories and is adapted from sections 1.1 and 2.2 (clinical chemistry), 1.3 and 2.5 (urinalysis), 1.4 and 2.6 (cytology), and 3 (postanalytical factors important in veterinary clinical pathology) of these guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide minimal guidelines for quality assurance and quality control for veterinary laboratory testing and a basis for laboratories to assess their current practices, determine areas for improvement, and guide continuing professional development and education efforts.     

ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of preanalytical and analytical factors for hematology for mammalian and nonmammalian species, hemostasis, and crossmatching in veterinary laboratories

In December 2009, the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards committee published the updated and peer-reviewed ASVCP Quality Assurance Guidelines on the Society's website. These guidelines are intended for use by veterinary diagnostic laboratories and veterinary research laboratories that are not covered by the US Food and Drug Administration Good Laboratory Practice standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 58). The guidelines have been divided into 3 reports: (1) general analytical factors for veterinary laboratory performance and comparisons; (2) hematology, hemostasis, and crossmatching; and (3) clinical chemistry, cytology, and urinalysis. This particular report is one of 3 reports and provides recommendations for control of preanalytical and analytical factors related to hematology for mammalian and nonmammalian species, hemostasis testing, and crossmatching and is adapted from sections 1.1 and 2.3 (mammalian hematology), 1.2 and 2.4 (nonmammalian hematology), 1.5 and 2.7 (hemostasis testing), and 1.6 and 2.8 (crossmatching) of the complete guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide minimal guidelines for quality assurance and quality control for veterinary laboratory testing and a basis for laboratories to assess their current practices, determine areas for improvement, and guide continuing professional development and education efforts.     

ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: external quality assessment and comparative testing for reference and in‐clinic laboratories

The purpose of this document is to educate providers of veterinary laboratory diagnostic testing in any setting about comparative testing. These guidelines will define, explain, and illustrate the importance of a multi‐faceted laboratory quality management program which includes comparative testing. The guidelines will provide suggestions for implementation of such testing, including which samples should be tested, frequency of testing, and recommendations for result interpretation. Examples and a list of vendors and manufacturers supplying control materials and services to veterinary laboratories are also included.     

Repeat patient testing shows promise as a quality control method for veterinary hematology testing

Background

Repeat patient testing‐based quality control (RPT‐QC) is a potential method for veterinary laboratories (eg, that have a limited budget for quality commercial control material [QCM] or that wish to use material with a species‐specific matrix).

Objectives

To determine whether total error (TE_a), probability of error detection (Ped), and probability of false rejection (Pfr) similar to that achievable with QC materials can be controlled using RPT‐QC

Methods

Control limits (WBC, RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, and PLT) for the Advia 120 (n = 23) and scil Vet ABC (n = 22) were calculated using data from normal canine specimens from a routine caseload. Specimens were measured at accession and again after 24 hours. Control limits were validated using 23 additional canine specimens tested similarly. Achievable TEa, Ped, and Pfr were investigated using the Westgard EZRules3 and compared to those achievable with commercial QCM.

Results

Theoretical performance of RPT‐QC and commercial QCM‐QC are similar for 1‐3s with both n = 1 and 1‐3s with n = 2 for all measurands and both instruments. Achievable TE_a values for RPT‐QC were close to ASVCP recommendations for most measurands; exceptions were PLT (both instruments) and WBC (scil Vet ABC).

Conclusions

Repeat patient testing‐based quality control advantages include a species‐specific matrix, low‐cost, and absence of QC material deterioration over time (since a fresh specimen is used each day). A potential disadvantage is daily access to normal canine specimens. A challenge is determining control limits, which has a subjective element. Further study is needed to confirm actual RPT‐QC performance and to determine if RPT‐QC with abnormal patient specimens is feasible.     

Plasma creatinine in dogs: intra- and inter-laboratory variation in 10 European veterinary laboratories

Background

There is substantial variation in reported reference intervals for canine plasma creatinine among veterinary laboratories, thereby influencing the clinical assessment of analytical results. The aims of the study was to determine the inter- and intra-laboratory variation in plasma creatinine among 10 veterinary laboratories, and to compare results from each laboratory with the upper limit of its reference interval.

Methods

Samples were collected from 10 healthy dogs, 10 dogs with expected intermediate plasma creatinine concentrations, and 10 dogs with azotemia. Overlap was observed for the first two groups. The 30 samples were divided into 3 batches and shipped in random order by postal delivery for plasma creatinine determination. Statistical testing was performed in accordance with ISO standard methodology.

Results

Inter- and intra-laboratory variation was clinically acceptable as plasma creatinine values for most samples were usually of the same magnitude. A few extreme outliers caused three laboratories to fail statistical testing for consistency. Laboratory sample means above or below the overall sample mean, did not unequivocally reflect high or low reference intervals in that laboratory.

Conclusions

In spite of close analytical results, further standardization among laboratories is warranted. The discrepant reference intervals seem to largely reflect different populations used in establishing the reference intervals, rather than analytical variation due to different laboratory methods.     

ASVCP reference interval guidelines: determination of de novo reference intervals in veterinary species and other related topics

Reference intervals (RI) are an integral component of laboratory diagnostic testing and clinical decision‐making and represent estimated distributions of reference values (RV) from healthy populations of comparable individuals. Because decisions to pursue diagnoses or initiate treatment are often based on values falling outside RI, the collection and analysis of RV should be approached with diligence. This report is a condensation of the ASVCP 2011 consensus guidelines for determination of de novo RI in veterinary species, which mirror the 2008 Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) recommendations, but with language and examples specific to veterinary species. Newer topics include robust methods for calculating RI from small sample sizes and procedures for outlier detection adapted to data quality. Because collecting sufficient reference samples is challenging, this document also provides recommendations for determining multicenter RI and for transference and validation of RI from other sources (eg, manufacturers). Advice for use and interpretation of subject‐based RI is included, as these RI are an alternative to population‐based RI when sample size or inter‐individual variation is high. Finally, generation of decision limits, which distinguish between populations according to a predefined query (eg, diseased or non‐diseased), is described. Adoption of these guidelines by the entire veterinary community will improve communication and dissemination of expected clinical laboratory values in a variety of animal species and will provide a template for publications on RI. This and other reports from the Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards (QALS) committee are intended to promote quality laboratory practices in laboratories serving both clinical and research veterinarians.     

检测实验室仪器设备管理工作

根据兽药检验机构在实验室认可工作中实验室仪器设备的管理现状,结合检测和校准实验室能力认可准则,对检测实验室仪器设备的规范化管理进行了探讨.     

Comparative clinical study of canine and feline total blood cell count results with seven in‐clinic and two commercial laboratory hematology analyzers

Background: A CBC is an integral part of the assessment of health and disease in companion animals. While in the past newer technologies for CBC analysis were limited to large clinical pathology laboratories, several smaller and affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in‐clinic use. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare CBC results generated by 7 in‐clinic laser‐ and impedance‐based hematology instruments and 2 commercial laboratory analyzers. Methods: Over a 3‐month period, fresh EDTA‐anticoagulated blood samples from healthy and diseased dogs (n=260) and cats (n=110) were analyzed on the LaserCyte, ForCyte, MS45, Heska CBC, Scil Vet ABC, VetScan HMT, QBC Vet Autoread, CELL‐DYN 3500, and ADVIA 120 analyzers. Results were compared by regression correlation (linear, Deming, Passing‐Bablok) and Bland–Altman bias plots using the ADVIA as the criterion standard for all analytes except HCT, which was compared with manual PCV. Precision, linearity, and carryover also were evaluated. Results: For most analytes, the in‐clinic analyzers and the CELL‐DYN performed similarly and correlated well with the ADVIA. The biases ranged from ?0.6 to 2.4 × 10⁹/L for WBC count, 0 to 0.9 × 10¹²/L for RBC count, ?1.5 to 0.7 g/dL for hemoglobin concentration, ?4.3 to 8.3 fL for MCV, and ?69.3 to 77.2 × 10⁹/L for platelet count. Compared with PCV, the HCT on most analyzers had a bias from 0.1% to 7.2%. Canine reticulocyte counts on the LaserCyte and ForCyte correlated but had a negative bias compared with those on the ADVIA. Precision, linearity, and carryover results were excellent for most analyzers. Conclusions: Total WBC and RBC counts were acceptable on all in‐clinic hematology instruments studied, with limitations for some RBC parameters and platelet counts. Together with evaluation of a blood film, these in‐clinic instruments can provide useful information on canine and feline patients in veterinary practices.     

AAFP and ISFM feline-friendly handling guidelines

BACKGROUND: The number of pet cats is increasing in most countries, often outnumbering pet dogs, yet cats receive less veterinary care than their canine counterparts.(1) Clients state the difficulty of getting the cat into a carrier at home, driving to the clinic, and dealing with the fearful cat at the veterinary clinic as reasons for fewer visits.(2) Educating and preparing the client and the veterinary team with regard to respectful feline handling is necessary in order to avoid stress and accomplish the goal of good health care. Without such preparation, feline stress may escalate into fear or fear-associated aggression. The resulting stress may alter results of the physical examination and laboratory tests, leading to incorrect diagnoses (eg, diabetes mellitus) and unnecessary treatments.(3-5) Without compassionate and respectful handling by the veterinary team, clients may feel the team lacks skills and compassion, or does not understand cats. Injury may occur to the cat, client and/or veterinary team.(6) Clients who want to avoid stress for their cat may avoid veterinary visits or choose another practice instead. GOALS: The use of feline-friendly handling techniques should reduce these problems. Handling is most successful when the veterinary team adapts the approach to each individual cat and situation. The goal of these guidelines is to provide useful information for handling cats that can lead to: ? Reduced fear and pain for the cat. ? Reinforced veterinarian-client-cat bond, trust and confidence, and thus better lifelong medical care for the cat. ? Improved efficiency, productivity and job satisfaction for the veterinary team. ? Increased client compliance. ? Timely reporting and early detection of medical and behavioral concerns. ? Fewer injuries to clients and the veterinary team. ? Reduced anxiety for the client.     

Genomic Tandem Repeat Analysis Proves Laboratory‐Acquired Brucellosis in Veterinary (Camel) Diagnostic Laboratory in the United Arab Emirates

We report a case of a 64‐year‐old veterinarian working in a state camel veterinary laboratory who was diagnosed with and treated for acute brucellosis with complicating epididymo‐orchitis. Genomic tandem repeat analysis (MLVA‐16) revealed identical Brucella strains in patient cultures and from different dromedary milk samples positive for Brucella melitensis, thereby confirming the diagnosis of a laboratory acquired infection. The case illustrates the high (airborne) infectivity of brucellosis in laboratory settings and the need to implement vigorous bio‐safety measures in veterinary laboratories handling camel specimen diagnostic veterinary laboratory.     

ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for portable blood glucose meter (glucometer) use in veterinary medicine

Portable blood glucose meters (PBGM, glucometers) are a convenient, cost effective, and quick means to assess patient blood glucose concentration. The number of commercially available PBGM is constantly increasing, making it challenging to determine whether certain glucometers may have benefits over others for veterinary testing. The challenge in selection of an appropriate glucometer from a quality perspective is compounded by the variety of analytic methods used to quantify glucose concentrations and disparate statistical analysis in many published studies. These guidelines were developed as part of the ASVCP QALS committee response to establish recommendations to improve the quality of testing using point‐of‐care testing (POCT) handheld and benchtop devices in veterinary medicine. They are intended for clinical pathologists and laboratory professionals to provide them with background knowledge and specific recommendations for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC), and to serve as a resource to assist the provision of advice to veterinarians and technicians to improve the quality of results obtained when using PBGM. These guidelines are not intended to be all‐inclusive; rather they provide a minimum standard for management of PBGM in the veterinary setting.     

Laboratory procedures.

The main foundation to veterinary medicine is the availability of laboratory tests. These tests may be performed in-clinic or at diagnostic laboratories. In-clinic testing is advantageous in producing quick results, but demands sound technical ability, basic equipment,and access to some routine and special reagents. Laboratory-based testing can back up those routine techniques that mayor may not be available at the clinic level as well as provide specialized testing. The knowledge of commercially available diagnostic services is important as well as preparation and proper shipping of samples for accurate determinations.     

Suggested guidelines for immunohistochemical techniques in veterinary diagnostic laboratories

This document is the consensus of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD) Subcommittee on Standardization of Immunohistochemistry on a set of guidelines for immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing in veterinary laboratories. Immunohistochemistry is a powerful ancillary methodology frequently used in many veterinary laboratories for both diagnostic and research purposes. However, neither standardization nor validation of IHC tests has been completely achieved in veterinary medicine. This document addresses both issues. Topics covered include antibody selection, fixation, antigen retrieval, antibody incubation, antibody dilutions, tissue and reagent controls, buffers, and detection systems. The validation of an IHC test is addressed for both infectious diseases and neoplastic processes. In addition, storage and handling of IHC reagents, interpretation, quality control and assurance, and troubleshooting are also discussed. Proper standardization and validation of IHC will improve the quality of diagnostics in veterinary laboratories.     

Current and emerging concepts in biological and analytical variation applied in clinical practice

A single laboratory result actually represents a range of possible values, and a given laboratory result is impacted not just by the presence or absence of disease, but also by biological variation of the measurand in question and analytical variation of the equipment used to make the measurement. Biological variation refers to variability in measurand concentration or activity around a homeostatic set point. Knowledge of biological and analytical variation can be used to facilitate interpretation of patient clinicopathologic data and is particularly useful for interpreting serial patient data and data at or near reference limits or clinical decision thresholds. Understanding how biological and analytical variation impact laboratory results is of increasing importance, because veterinarians evaluate serial data from individual patients, interpret data from multiple testing sites, and use expert consensus guidelines that include decision thresholds for clinicopathologic data interpretation. The purpose of our report is to review current and emerging concepts in biological and analytical variation and discuss how biological and analytical variation data can be used to facilitate clinicopathologic data interpretation. Inclusion of veterinary clinical pathologists having expertise in laboratory quality management and biological variation on research teams and veterinary practice guideline development teams is recommended, to ensure that various considerations for clinicopathologic data interpretation are addressed.     

Differentiating between analytical and diagnostic performance evaluation with a focus on the method comparison study and identification of bias

Prior to introduction of a new method to the diagnostic laboratory, analytical performance must be validated to ensure operation within the manufacturer's specifications and/or within predetermined quality requirements. In addition, the new method may require diagnostic performance assessment to ensure it differentiates between diseased and nondiseased individuals as intended. These 2 phases of assessment, while complementary, are not equivalent and require a different set of experiments, statistical analyses, and interpretation. Studies of analytical performance typically include a method comparison experiment, the purpose of which is to identify bias (inaccuracy) of the “test” (or “index”) method (new method) relative to a “comparative method” (established method). Analysis of method comparison data is facilitated by commercial software programs that present the statistical significance of identified bias; however, the clinical relevance of any bias also should be considered. Studies of diagnostic performance should not be pursued until analytical performance is fully characterized and may not be required for well‐established tests or for those for which results are nonspecific (ie, not referable to a specific disease or condition). Diagnostic performance assessment may include assessment of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, odds ratios, and/or likelihood ratios. The purpose of this review is to clarify differences between the assessment of analytical and diagnostic performance, and to explore the method comparison study and bias assessment from a perspective not addressed in prior veterinary articles.     

Canine reference intervals for the Sysmex XT-2000iV hematology analyzer

Background: The laser‐based Sysmex XT‐2000iV hematology analyzer is increasingly used in veterinary clinical pathology laboratories, and instrument‐specific reference intervals for dogs are not available. Objective: The purpose of this study was to establish canine hematologic reference intervals according to International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines using the Sysmex XT‐2000iV hematology analyzer. Methods: Blood samples from 132 healthy purebred dogs from France, selected to represent the most prevalent canine breeds in France, were analyzed. Blood smears were scored for platelet (PLT) aggregates. Reference intervals were established using the nonparametric method. PLT and RBC counts obtained by impedance and optical methods were compared. Effects of sex and age on reference intervals were determined. Results: The correlation between impedance (I) and optical (O) measurements of RBC and PLT counts was excellent (Pearson r=.99 and .98, respectively); however, there were significant differences between the 2 methods (Student's paired t‐test, P<.0001). Differences between sexes were not significant except for HCT, PLT‐I, and PLT‐O. WBC, lymphocyte, and neutrophil counts decreased significantly with age (ANOVA, P<.05). Median eosinophil counts were higher in Brittany Spaniels (1.87 × 10⁹/L), Rottweilers (1.41 × 10⁹/L), and German Shepherd dogs (1.38 × 10⁹/L) than in the overall population (0.9 × 10⁹/L). PLT aggregates were responsible for lower PLT counts by the impedance, but not the optical, method. Conclusion: Reference intervals for hematologic analytes and indices were determined under controlled preanalytical and analytical conditions for a well‐characterized population of dogs according to international recommendations.     

奶及奶制品中兽药残留高通量检测方法研究进展

在生产中兽药的滥用可能导致牛奶中的兽药残留并对消费者健康造成风险。由于兽药种类较多,单一检测效率较低,而高通量检测技术可以一次性检测多种兽药残留,省时省力,因此成为当前研究的热点。在样品前处理方面,分散固相萃取技术（如QuEChERS方法）由于其简单、快速、成本低等特点,广泛应用于样品净化过程;另一方面,超高效液相色谱串联质谱由于其分离快、灵敏度与准确度高等特点,展示出比高效液相色谱法更好的分析能力和应用前景。随着新技术的应用和新仪器的使用,兽药残留检测在前处理效率、仪器灵敏度和高通量检测方面发展迅速。作者结合近些年发表的文献,综述了奶及奶制品中兽药残留前处理技术（液液萃取法、固相萃取法、QuEChERS和盐析支持液液萃取）和高通量检测技术（高效液相色谱法、液相色谱-质谱联用、超高效液相色谱串联质谱和液相色谱-飞行时间质谱法）,为今后相关检测研究提供参考。