Erythrocytic indices of clinical blood analysis and reference intervals among men and women aged 18–45 years

Relevance. The determination of reference intervals (RI) in clinical blood analysis for erythrocytes and their specific parameters: mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and red cell distribution width (RDW), allows us to use these parameters for differential diagnostics of various pathological conditions from variants of norm.

Objective. Calculate the RI for erythrocyte parameters of a complete blood count for patients in a certain age group (18– 45 years) with normal indicators of iron homeostasis. The reference ranges may vary depending on the analytical systems and diagnostic reagents used.

Material and methods. The study included blood samples from 158 healthy volunteers aged 18–45 years, of whom 127 (80.4 %) were women and 31 (19.6 %) were men. The data were obtained from the «KDL-TEST» company database for the period from 01.01.2023 to 01.01.2024. The criteria for inclusion in the study were: age from 18 to 45 years, clinical blood test results, and iron homeostasis within the RI of the «KDL-TEST» laboratory, absence of signs of an inflammatory process based on normal levels of C-reactive protein (CRP). Analyses were performed using a hematological analyzer Mindray BC- 6800 (manufactured by Mindray, China) and an automatic biochemical analyzer model AU-5800 (Beckman Coulter, USA) using IRON reagents (Beckman Coulter, USA) for the photometric colorimetric method and CRP-latex (Beckman Coulter, USA) immunoturbidimetric method.

Results. The studies revealed a decrease in the upper limit of the RI for red blood cells (RBC) and their indices (RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW-CV) in women compared with the RI of the Russian National Standard (2009), which amounted to 4 % for the number of red blood cells, 5 % for hemoglobin, 2 % for hematocrit, 3.8 % for MCV and 3.5 % for MCH, as well as 4.2 % for MCHC; and a decrease in the upper limit of the RI of erythrocytes and erythrocyte indices (RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW-CV) in relation to the RI of the Russian National Standard (2009) in men for erythrocytes by 3.9 %, hemoglobin by 4, 6 %, MCV — by 1.9 %, MCH — by 4 %, MCHC — by 5.8 %. No significant differences were found in the values of erythrocytes and their specific parameters, hemoglobin, and hematocrit, between the data of the hematology analyzers Mindray BC-6800 and Sysmex XE series (p >0.05).

Conclusions. A decrease in the RI of clinical blood analysis in women and men for some hemogram parameters (RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW-CV) in comparison with the RI of clinical blood analysis of the Russian National Standard (2009), which are within the generally accepted statistically acceptable deviations, was found. The use of automated hematology analyzers did not significantly affect the RI of erythrocytes or their specific parameters.

1. Jørgensen HL, Lind BS. Blood tests — too much of a good thing. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022;(2): 165-166. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2022.2104436

2. Watson J, Burrell A, Duncan P, et al. Primary care Academic CollaboraTive. Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UKwide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive. Br J Gen Pract. 2024;74(740):e133-e140. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0191

3. Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation from 27.04.2021 N 404n “On approval of the procedure for preventive medical examination and medical examination of certain groups of the adult population”. (In Russ.) http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202106300043

4. Chaulin AM, Grigorieva YuV, Pavlova TV, Duplyakov DV. Diagnostic significance of complete blood count in cardiovascular patients. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(12):3923. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2020-3923.

5. Tsivanyuk MM, Geltser BI, Shakhgeldyan KI, et al. Parameters of complete blood count, lipid profile and their ratios in predicting obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2022;27(8):5079. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2022-5079.

6. Malykhin FT. Parameters of clinical blood analysis in chronic broncho obstructive pathology. Sechenov medical Journal. 2018;(2):43-48. (In Russ.).

7. Cabalar I, Le TH, Silber A, et al. The role of blood testing in prevention, diagnosis, and management of chronic diseases: A review. Am J Med Sci. 2024;368(4):274- 286. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2024.04.009.

8. GOST R 53022.3-2008. Clinical laboratory technologies. Requirements for the quality of clinical laboratory tests. Part 3. Rules for assessment of clinical informativeness of laboratory tests. (In Russ.) https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200072565

9. Draft national standard GOST R “Clinical laboratory technologies. Research of blood cellular composition using hematological analyzers”. Problems of standardization in healthcare. 2009;5-6:30- 61. (In Russ.).

10. Pekelharing JM, Hauss O, Jonge R, Lokhoff J, Sodikromo J, Spaans M et al. Haematology reference intervals for established and novel parameters in healthy adults. Diagnostic Perspectives. 2010;1:1-11.

11. Abdullaev RYu, Tikhonov AM, Shorokhova VA, Komissarova O G. Parameters of complete blood count and blood chemistry during treatment of patients with MDR/XDR pulmonary tuberculosis with a short-course regimen containing bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid. Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. 2023;101 (4): 22–28 (In Russ.) doi: 10.58838/2075-1230-2023-101-4-22-28.

12. Gubenko NS, Budko AA, Plisyuk AG, Orlova IA. Association of general blood count indicators with the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. South Russia Journal of Therapeutic Practices. 2021;2(1):90-101. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21886/2712-8156-2021-2-1-90-101.

13. Slesareva TA, Gruzdeva OV, Tarasova OL, et al. The use of 8-diff clinical blood testing of patients to assess the severity of the new coronavirus infection. The Siberian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2022;37(4):149–160. (In Russ.) doi: 10.29001/2073-8552-2022-37-4-149-160.

14. Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, et al. The international consensus group for hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol. 2005;11(2):83-90. doi: 10.1532/LH96.05019.

15. Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, Pahwa AK, Petrilli C, Ziemba JB, Cho HJ, Alban R, Blanck JF, Parsons AS. Evidence-Based Guidelines to Eliminate Repetitive Laboratory Testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Dec 1;177(12):1833-1839. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5152.

16. Busby J, Schroeder K, Woltersdorf W, et al. Temporal growth and geographic variation in the use of laboratory tests by NHS general practices: using routine data to identify research priorities. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(609):e256-66. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X665224.

17. Munk JK, Hansen MF, Buhl H, Lind BS, Bathum L, Jørgensen HL. The 10 most frequently requested blood tests in the Capital Region of Denmark, 2010- 2019 and simulated effect of minimal retesting intervals. Clin Biochem. 2022 Feb;100:55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2021.11.002.

18. Hauser RG, Quine DB, Iscoe M, Arvisais-Anhalt S. Development and Implementation of a Standard Format for Clinical Laboratory Test Results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2022;158(3):409-415. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqac067.

19. Mrazek C, Haschke-Becher E, Felder TK, et al. Laboratory demand management strategies — an overview. Diagnostics. 2021;11(7):1141. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11071141.

20. Santos-Silva MA, Sousa N, Sousa JC. Artificial intelligence in routine blood tests. Front. Med. Eng. 2024;2:1369265. doi: 10.3389/fmede.2024.1369265

21. Sikaris KA. Enhancing the Clinical Value of Medical Laboratory Testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2017;38(3):107-114.