Point-of-care testing and INR within-subject variation in patients receiving a constant dose of vitamin K antagonist

Summary

Many patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) determine their INR using point-of-care (POC) whole blood coagulation monitors. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the INR within-subject variation in self-testing patients receiving a constant dose of VKA. The second aim of the study was to derive INR imprecision goals for whole blood coagulation monitors. Analytical performance goals for INR measurement can be derived from the average biological within-subject variation. Fifty-six Thrombosis Centres in the Netherlands were invited to select self-testing patients who were receiving a constant dose of either acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon for at least six consecutive INR measurements. In each patient, the coefficient of variation (CV) of INRs was calculated. One Thrombosis Centre selected regular patients being monitored with a POC device by professional staff. Sixteen Dutch Thrombosis Centres provided results for 322 selected patients, all using the CoaguChek XS. The median within-subject CV in patients receiving acenocoumarol (10.2 %) was significantly higher than the median CV in patients receiving phenprocoumon (8.6 %) (p = 0.001). The median CV in low-target intensity acenocoumarol self-testing patients (10.4 %) was similar to the median CV in regular patients monitored by professional staff (10.2 %). Desirable INR analytical imprecision goals for POC monitoring with CoaguChek XS in patients receiving either low-target intensity acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon were 5.1 % and 4.3 %, respectively. The approximate average value for the imprecision of the CoaguChek XS, i. e. 4 %, is in agreement with these goals.

Keywords

Vitamin K–antagonist - point-of-care testing - International Normalized Ratio - within-subject variation - analytical performance goal

• References

• 1 Van Geest-Daalderop JH, Sturk A, Levi M. et al. Extent and quality of anti-coagulation treatment with coumarin derivatives by the Dutch Thrombosis Services. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2004; 148: 730-735.
• 2 Netherlands Federation of Thrombosis Services. Summary medical annual reports 2013. Available at http://www.fnt.nl/
• 3 Le Heuzey J-Y, Ammentorp B, Darius H. et al. Differences among western European countries in anticoagulation management of atrial fibrillation. Data from the PREFER IN AF registry. Thromb Haemost 2014; 111: 833-841.
• 4 Ansell J. Point-of-care patient self-monitoring of oral vitamin K antagonist therapy. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2013; 35: 339-341.
• 5 Christensen TD, Larsen TB. Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing coagulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2012; 10: 251-260.
• 6 Fraser CG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Libeer JC. et al. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997; 34: 8-12.
• 7 Fraser CG. Optimal analytical performance for point-of-care testing. Clin Chim Acta 2001; 307: 37-43.
• 8 Lassen JF, Brandslund I, Antonsen S. International Normalized Ratio for prothrombin times in patients taking oral anticoagulants: critical difference and probability of significant change in consecutive measurements. Clin Chem 1995; 41: 444-447.
• 9 Van Geest-Daalderop JHH, Péquériaux NCV, van den Besselaar AMHP. Variability of INR in patients on stable long-term treatment with phenprocoumon and acenocoumarol and implications for analytical quality requirements. Thromb Haemost 2009; 102: 588-592.
• 10 Van Geest-Daalderop JHH, Kraaijenhagen RJ, van der Meer FJM. et al. Intraindividual variation of the International Normalized Ratio in patients monitored with a recombinant human thromboplastin. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 08: 1641-1642.
• 11 Van den Besselaar AMHP, Fogar P, Pengo V. et al. Biological variation of INR in stable patients on long-term anticoagulation with warfarin. Thromb Res 2012; 130: 535-537.
• 12 Sølvik UØ, Røraas TH, Petersen PH. et al. Effect of coagulation factors on discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio results between instruments. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012; 50: 1611-16120.
• 13 Bezemer ID, Roemer WH, Penning-van Beest FJA. et al. INR control calculation: comparison of Dutch and international methods. Neth J Med 2013; 71: 194-198.
• 14 Cotte J, Lacroix G, D’Aranda E. et al. Coagulopathie traumatique en évacuation sanitaire de longue durée: apport du CoaguChek® XS pro. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2013; 32: 122-123.
• 15 Braun S, Watzke H, Hasenkam JM. et al. Performance evaluation of the new CoaguChek XS system compared with the established CoaguChek system by patients experienced in INR-self management. Thromb Haemost 2007; 97: 310-314.
• 16 Plesch W, Wolf T, Breitenbeck N. et al. Results of the performance verification of the CoaguChek XS system. Thromb Res 2008; 123: 381-389.
• 17 Wieloch M, Hillarp A, Strandberg K. et al. Comparison and evaluation of a point-of-care device (CoaguChek XS) to Owren-type prothrombin time assay for monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy with warfarin. Thromb Res 2009; 124: 344-348.
• 18 Sølvik UØ, Petersen PH, Monsen G. et al. Discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio results between instruments: a model to split the variation into subcomponents. Clin Chem 2010; 56: 1618-1626.
• 19 Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJM. et al. A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 1993; 69: 236-239.
• 20 Salobir B, Šabovič M, Peternel P. Intensity of long-term treatment with warfarin is influenced by seasonal variations. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2002; 32: 151-154.
• 21 Karlson B, Leijd B, Hellstrom K. On the influence of vitamin K–rich vegetables and wine on the effectiveness of warfarin treatment. Acta Med Scand 1986; 220: 347-350.
• 22 Heneghan C, Ward A, Perera R. et al. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2012; 379: 322-334.
• 23 Fihn SD, Gadisseur A, Pasterkamp E. et al. Comparison of control and stability of oral anticoagulant therapy using acenocoumarol versus phenprocoumon. Thromb Haemost 2003; 90: 260-266.
• 24 Thijssen HHW, Hamulyák K, Willigers H. 4-Hydroxycoumarin oral anticoagulants: pharmacokinetics-response relationship. Thromb Haemost 1988; 60: 35-38.
• 25 Van Geest-Daalderop JHH, Hutten BA, Péquériaux NCV. et al. The influence on INRs and coagulation factors of the time span between blood sample collection and intake of phenprocoumon or acenocoumarol: consequences for the assessment of the dose. Thromb Haemost 2007; 98: 738-746.
• 26 Witt DM, Delate T, Clark NP. et al. Twelve-month outcomes and predictors of very stable INR control in prevalent warfarin users. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 08: 744-749.
• 27 Van den Besselaar AMHP, Péquériaux NCV, Ebben M. et al. Point-of-care monitoring of vitamin K–antagonists: validation of CoaguChek XS test strips with international standard thromboplastin. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 1031-1035.