Performance of the microINR Point-of-Care System: A Multicenter Clinical Trial

Abstract

Introduction There are limited publications about the microINR point-of-care (POC) system (iLine Microsystems). The current microINR POC system was compared with the ACL TOP 500 laboratory analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratory) and with the CoaguChek XS POC system (Roche Diagnostics).

Methods This study was performed at three United States medical centers. Sixty-eight nonanticoagulated normal donors and 245 warfarin anticoagulated patients were included. Testing was performed in duplicate using capillary blood samples for the POC systems and venous blood samples for the laboratory testing. Accuracy and imprecision were assessed.

Results Comparing microINR to ACL revealed a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.973, a slope of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97–1.03), and an intercept of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04–0.15). When compared with the CoaguChek XS, r was 0.977 with a slope of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89–0.94) and an intercept of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.08–0.19). Predicted bias values at international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0, 3.5, and 4.5 were ≤ 5% against both references. Agreement with ACL was 97, 95, and 100% for the INR ranges of < 2.0 ± 0.40, 2.0 to 4.5 ± 20%, and ≥ 4.5 ± 25%, respectively. Agreement for the combined INR ranges was 96% against ACL and > 96% against the CoaguChek XS. The coefficient of variation of the microINR was 5.03% for INR < 2.0 and 4.68% for the therapeutic INR range 2.0 to 3.5.

Conclusion The microINR results demonstrate adequate imprecision and accuracy to both ACL and CoaguChek XS. This indicates that monitoring INR by this microINR POC system is reliable and acceptable for the management of warfarin therapy.

Keywords

international normalized ratio - warfarin - point-of-care systems - anticoagulants - prothrombin time

Note

All authors serve as principle investigators of this clinical trial.

• References

• 1 Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Adcock D, Favaloro EJ. Oral anticoagulants around the world: an updated state-of-the art analysis. Ann Blood 2018
• 2 Ageno W, Gallus AS, Wittkowsky A, Crowther M, Hylek EM, Palareti G. Oral anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed.: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141 (2, Suppl): e44S-e88S
• 3 Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJM, Briët E. A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 1993; 69 (03) 236-239
• 4 Bloomfield HE, Krause A, Greer N. , et al. Meta-analysis: effect of patient self-testing and self-management of long-term anticoagulation on major clinical outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154 (07) 472-482
• 5 Steffel J, Verhamme P, Potpara TS. , et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2018; 39 (16) 1330-1393
• 6 Phelps E, Delate T, Witt DM, Shaw PB, McCool KH, Clark NP. Effect of increased time in the therapeutic range on atrial fibrillation outcomes within a centralized anticoagulation service. Thromb Res 2018; 163: 54-59
• 7 Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G. , et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2018; 154 (05) 1121-1201
• 8 Brieger D, Amerena J, Attia JR. , et al. National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation 2018. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 27 (10) 1209-1266
• 9 van den Besselaar AMHP, van der Meer FJM, Abdoel CF, Witteveen E. Analytical accuracy and precision of two novel point-of-care systems for INR determination. Thromb Res 2015; 135 (03) 526-531
• 10 Joubert J, van Zyl MC, Raubenheimer J. Performance evaluation of the microINR^® point-of-care INR-testing system. Int J Lab Hematol 2018; 40 (02) 115-122
• 11 Larsen PB, Storjord E, Bakke Å. , et al. The microINR portable coagulometer: analytical quality and user-friendliness of a PT (INR) point-of-care instrument. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2017; 77 (02) 115-121
• 12 ISO 17593:2007 Clinical Laboratory Testing and in Vitro Medical Devices–Requirements for in Vitro Monitoring Systems for Self-Testing of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. International Organization for Standardization; 2007
• 13 Food and Drug Administration. Point of Care PT/INR Devices for Monitoring Warfarin Therapy. In: FDA CDRH Public Workshop; 2016
• 14 Zucker ML. PT/INR Testing: Calibration, Correlation, Concordance. AACC's webinar. 2019 . Available at: https://www.aacc.org/education-and-career/all-webinars/webinars/2019/march/ptinr-testing-calibration-correlation-concordance . Accessed March 6, 2019
• 15 microINR CHIPS [package insert]. iLine Microsystems; 2017
• 16 CoaguChek XS PT Test [package insert]. Roche Diagnostics; 2017
• 17 CLSI H21–A5 Collection, Transport, and Processing of Blood Specimens for Testing Plasma-Based Coagulation Assays and Molecular Hemostasis Assays; Approved Guideline—Fifth Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008
• 18 CLSI EP09–A3 Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline—Third Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014
• 19 Rossiter J, Soor G, Telner D, Aliarzadeh B, Lake J. A pharmacist-led point-of-care INR clinic: optimizing care in a family health team setting. Int J Family Med 2013; 2013: 691454
• 20 Karlsson T. A project to improve the management of patients on warfarin in a primary care setting through the introduction of a POC analysis. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2016; 5 (01) u211003.w4421