Key result
UK NEQAS centers demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for von Willebrand disease, with 99% correctly interpreting normal, type 1, and type 2 samples, despite marked variation in diagnostic criteria.
Why the study?
Effective management of von Willebrand disease requires accurate diagnosis and subtype classification, making quality assurance and proficiency testing programs essential to ensure assay accuracy.
Cross-Sectional
Yes
UK NEQAS centers demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy and precision for VWD assays, though marked variation in diagnostic criteria highlights the need for standardized guidelines.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports EQA participation to enhance VWD diagnostic accuracy; leaves open optimal assay standardization across labs.
Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is one of the most common hereditary bleeding disorders. Effective management of patients and their families depends on accurate diagnosis and subtype classification, and quality assurance including participation in proficiency testing programs is essential to ensure the accuracy of the panel of assays required to achieve this diagnosis. We report here findings from recent external quality assessment (EQA) exercises, as well as from a questionnaire about diagnostic practices employed by centers in the United Kingdom National Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) performing von Willebrand factor (VWF) assays. Plasma samples from donors with VWD, “normal” donors, the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific Subcommittee (ISTH SSC) plasma standard, and whole blood samples were sent to participants in the UK NEQAS BC program for VWF investigation. Calibration of lot#5 of the ISTH SSC plasma standard was shown to give improved comparability between the recovered value from an EQA exercise and the assigned potency for VWF activity assays. Diagnostic accuracy and precision amongst UK NEQAS participants was good, with an average 99% of centers reporting the correct interpretation for normal, type 1 and type 2 VWD samples, 100% diagnostic accuracy for centers performing FVIII binding assays, and good agreement amongst centers performing multimeric analysis. Genetic analysis of the VWF gene by specialist centers demonstrated errors in the genotyping process in one center, but also demonstrated failings in the interpretation of results in other centers. Despite evidence of good laboratory accuracy and precision in their assays, a questionnaire identified marked variation in diagnostic criteria employed, underlining the importance of guidelines to support the diagnosis of VWD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennings et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in von Willebrand disease (VWD). External quality assessment (EQA) and questionnaire was evaluated on Correct interpretation for normal, type 1 and type 2 VWD samples. UK NEQAS centers demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for von Willebrand disease, with 99% correctly interpreting normal, type 1, and type 2 samples, despite marked variation in diagnostic criteria.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: