Reliable automated blood cell characterization and quantification remain challenging in pathologic samples, whereas slide reviews due to unnecessary flagging should be avoided. We compared 4 modern hematology analyzers-Abbott Sapphire, Siemens Advia 120, Sysmex XE-2100, and Beckman Coulter DxH 800-regarding complete blood cell count (CBC), leukocyte differential count, and flagging efficacy in a total of 202 samples from hematology patients and normal controls. Manual differential count was used as reference. The analyzers exhibited very good correlation for CBC parameters. Neutrophils and eosinophils also showed very good correlations, whereas lymphocytes and monocytes correlated fairly. The Advia 120 displayed notably lower measurements for both parameters, which is attributable to classification of some events as large unstained cells. Basophil counts were unreliable with all analyzers. Flagging for blasts and immature granulocytes showed moderate sensitivity and specificity. Operators must not rely on blast flagging alone to detect leukemic samples with any analyzer.
Background: Measurement of immature platelets was introduced into routine diagnostics by Sysmex as immature platelet fraction (IPF) some years ago and recently by Abbott as reticulated platelet fraction (rPT). Here, we compare both methods. Methods: We evaluated the precision and agreement of these parameters between Sysmex XE-5000 and Abbott CD-Sapphire in three distinct thrombocytopaenic cohorts: 30 patients with beginning thrombocytopaenia and 64 patients with recovering platelets (PLT) after chemotherapy, 16 patients with immune thrombocytopaenia (ITP) or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia type 2 (HIT) and 110 additional normal controls. Furthermore, we analysed, how IPF/rPT differed between these thrombocytopaenic cohorts and controls. Results: Both analysers demonstrated acceptable overall precision (repeatability) of IPF/rPT with lower precision at low PLT counts. IPF/rPT artificially increased during storage of blood samples overnight. Inter-instrument comparison showed a moderate correlation (Pearson r² = 0.38) and a systematic bias of 1.04 towards higher IPFvalues with the XE-5000. IPF/rPT was highest in recovering thrombopoesis after chemotherapy and moderately increased in ITP/HIT. The normal range deduced from control samples was much narrower with CD-Sapphire (1.0%-3.8%, established here for the first time) in comparison to XE-5000 (0.8%-7.9%) leading to a smaller overlap of samples with increased PLT turnover and normal controls. Conclusions: IPF and rPT both give useful information on PLT turnover, although the two analysers only show a moderate inter-instrument correlation and have diffe rent reference ranges. A better separation of patient groups with high PLT turnover like ITP/HIT from normal controls is obtained by CD-Sapphire.
Detection of immature platelets in the circulation may help to dissect thrombocytopenia due to platelet destruction from bone marrow failure (BMF). We prospectively tested the predictive value of immature platelets, measured as immature platelet fraction (IPF) on the XE-5000 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) or percentage of reticulated platelets (rPT) on the CD Sapphire (Abbott Diagnostics, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to separate immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) from BMF (leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anaemia). We analysed 58 samples of patients with BMF, 47 samples of patients with ITP and 97 controls. Median rPT (CD Sapphire) was increased to 9·0% in ITP and to 10·9% in BMF, compared to 1·9% in controls. Median IPF (XE-5000) was 16·2% in ITP, 10·2% in BMF and 2·5% in controls. We found an inverse correlation between high fractions of immature platelets and low platelet counts in thrombocytopenic samples regardless of the diagnosis. In conclusion, we observed a broad overlap of immature platelets between ITP and BMF, which may be caused by an accelerated release of immature platelets in any thrombocytopenic state and decreased production in many patients with ITP. Despite this, IPF (XE-5000) had some power to discriminate ITP from BMF, whereas rPT (CD Sapphire) was of no predictive value.
Background First-line antifungal treatment for invasive mucormycosis (IM) consists of liposomal amphotericin B. Salvage treatment options are limited and often based on posaconazole oral suspension. With the approval of posaconazole new formulations, patients could benefit from improved pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability. Objectives Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of posaconazole new formulations for IM treatment. Methods We performed a case-matched analysis with proven or probable IM patients from the FungiScope® Registry. First-line posaconazole new formulations (1st-POSnew) and first-line amphotericin B plus posaconazole new formulations (1st-AMB+POSnew) cases were matched with first-line amphotericin B-based (1st-AMB) treatment controls. Salvage posaconazole new formulations (SAL-POSnew) cases were matched with salvage posaconazole oral suspension (SAL-POSsusp) controls. Each case was matched with up to three controls (based on severity, haematological/oncological malignancy, surgery and/or renal dysfunction). Results Five patients receiving 1st-POSnew, 18 receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and 22 receiving SAL-POSnew were identified. By day 42, a favourable response was reported for 80.0% (n = 4/5) of patients receiving 1st-POSnew, for 27.8% (n = 5/18) receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and for 50.0% (n = 11/22) receiving SAL-POSnew. Day 42 all-cause mortality of patients receiving posaconazole new formulations was lower compared with controls [20.0% (n = 1/5) in 1st-POSnew versus 53.3% (n = 8/15) in 1st-AMB; 33.3% (n = 6/18) in 1st-AMB+POSnew versus 52.0% (n = 26/50) in 1st-AMB; and 0.0% (n = 0/22) in SAL-POSnew versus 4.4% (n = 2/45) in SAL-POSsusp]. Conclusions Posaconazole new formulations were effective in terms of treatment response and associated mortality of IM. While posaconazole new formulations may be an alternative for treatment of IM, the limited sample size of our study calls for a cautious interpretation of these observations.
In patients with hematological malignancies, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) specimens are commonly used for the diagnosis of mold infections. However, it is not clear whether the cell pellet (P) or the supernatant fraction (S) of the BALF specimen is optimal for molecular diagnostic testing. Thus, 99 BALF specimens were collected from 96 hematology patients with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The cell pellets and supernatants were processed alone and in combination (S/P) for testing by two fungus-specific real-time PCR assays compliant with international recommendations. The results achieved with S/P were revealed to be superior in comparison to those achieved with S and P alone, with the use of each single fraction showing a reduced sensitivity for the detection of DNA (82% and 43% for S and P, respectively). In 57% of the samples, testing of the combination of S and P generated a lower quantification cycle value than testing of S or P alone. Molds would have been missed in 5 and 16 out of 28 samples if only S or P, respectively, was analyzed. No sample was positive by testing of S or P only. Similar results were obtained for the detection of Mucorales DNA in BALF specimens (reduced sensitivity of 67% and 50% for S and P, respectively). Study patients were categorized according to the current European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group classification for invasive fungal disease (IFD), revealing that 35 patients had proven/probable IFD (36%), 47 patients had possible IFD (49%), and 14 patients had undetermined IFD (15%).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.