2B von Willebrand disease diagnosis: Considerations reflecting on 2021 multisociety guidelines

Bleeding Disorder of Unknown Cause: A Diagnosis of Exclusion

Patients with an unexplained mild to moderate bleeding tendency are diagnosed with bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), a classification reached after ruling out other mild to moderate bleeding disorders (MBD) including von Willebrand disease (VWD), platelet function defects (PFDs), coagulation factor deficiencies (CFDs), and non-hemostatic causes for bleeding. This review outlines our diagnostic approach to BDUC, a diagnosis of exclusion, drawing on current guidelines and insights from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank (VIBB). According to guidelines, we diagnose VWD based on VWF antigen and/or activity levels ≤50 IU/dL, with repeated VWF testing if VWF levels are <80 IU/dL. This has been introduced in our clinical routine after our findings of diagnostically relevant fluctuations of VWF levels in a high proportion of MBD patients. PFDs are identified through repeated abnormalities in light transmission aggregometry (LTA), flow cytometric mepacrine fluorescence, and glycoprotein expression analysis. Nevertheless, we experience diagnostic challenges with regard to reproducibility and unspecific alterations of LTA. For factor (F) VIII and FIX deficiency, a cutoff of 50% is utilized to ensure detection of mild hemophilia A or B. We apply established cutoffs for other rare CFD being aware that these do not clearly reflect the causal role of the bleeding tendency. Investigations into very rare bleeding disorders due to hyperfibrinolysis or increase in natural anticoagulants are limited to cases with a notable family history or distinct bleeding phenotypes considering cost-effectiveness. While the pathogenesis of BDUC remains unknown, further explorations of this intriguing area may reveal new mechanisms and therapeutic targets.

Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand disease in the age of the new guidelines: considerations based on geography and resources

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is considered the most common bleeding disorder and arises from deficiency and/or defect in the adhesive plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). Diagnosis of VWD requires clinical assessment and is facilitated by laboratory testing. Several guidelines for VWD diagnosis exist, with the latest American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia 2021 guidelines presenting 11 recommendations, some of which have drawn controversy. In the current narrative review, we provide additional context around difficulties in laboratory diagnosis/exclusion/typing of VWD, with a focus on developing countries/resource-poor settings. In particular, there are many variations in assay methodology, and some methods express high assay variability and poor low-level VWF sensitivity that compromises their utility. Although we favor an initial 4-test assay panel, comprising factor (F) VIII coagulant activity, VWF antigen, VWF glycoprotein Ib binding (VWF:GPIbR or VWF:GPIbM favored over VWF Ristocetin cofactor) and VWF collagen binding, we also provide strategies for laboratories only able to incorporate an initial 3-test assay panel, as favored by the latest guidelines, to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Laboratory Testing for von Willebrand Disease Using a Composite Rapid 3-Test Chemiluminescence-Based von Willebrand Factor Assay Panel

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most commonly reported inherited bleeding disorder and may alternatively occur as an acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS). VWD/AVWS develops from defects and/or deficiency in the adhesive plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). VWD/AVWS diagnosis/exclusion remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of VWF defects and the technical limitations of many VWF tests, as well as the VWF test panels (number and type of tests) chosen by many laboratories. Laboratory testing for these disorders utilizes evaluation of VWF level and activity, with activity assessment needing several tests due to the many functions performed by VWF in order to help counteract bleeding. This report explains procedures for evaluating VWF level (antigen; VWF:Ag) and activity by means of a chemiluminescence-based panel. Activity assays comprise collagen binding (VWF:CB) and a ristocetin-based recombinant glycoprotein Ib-binding (VWF:GPIbR) assay that reflects a contemporary alternative to classical ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo). This 3-test VWF panel (Ag, CB, GPIbR [RCo]) reflects the only such composite panel available on a single platform and is performed on an AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory). Certain regional approvals may also allow this 3-test VWF panel to be performed on the BioFlash instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory).

Challenges in the management of women with type 2B von Willebrand disease during pregnancy and the postpartum period: evidence from literature and data from an international registry and physicians' survey-communication from the Scientific and Standardization Committees of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

BACKGROUND

Management of women with type 2B von Willebrand disease (VWD) during pregnancy is challenging because of dysfunctional von Willebrand factor (VWF) and the complexity resulting from discrepant VWF/factor VIII (VWF/FVIII) levels, impaired platelet-dependent VWF activity, progressive thrombocytopenia, and risks associated with the use of desmopressin. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we examined the current diagnostic and management approaches and outcomes in women with VWD during pregnancy.

METHODS

Data were collected via 3 avenues: literature review, an international registry, and an international survey on physicians' practices for the management of pregnancy in women with VWD. The registry and survey were supported by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

RESULTS

Data on clinical and laboratory features, management and bleeding complications, and pregnancy outcomes of a total of 55 pregnancies from 49 women across the globe (literature: 35, registry: 20) and data reported by 112 physicians were analyzed. We describe the largest dataset on pregnancies in women with type 2B VWD available to date. The data highlight the following key issues: a) bleeding complications remain a concern in these patients, b) the target safe VWF level and the ideal monitoring approach are unknown, c) there is a wide range of hemostatic management practices in the type and timing of treatment, and d) physicians have diverse views on the mode of delivery and use of neuraxial anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that an international consensus and guidance are critically required for better care and improved outcomes in this patient cohort.

How Do Laboratories Perform von Willebrand Disease Diagnostics and Classification of von Willebrand Disease Patients? Results from External Quality Data and an International Survey

BACKGROUND

 Reduced or dysfunctional von Willebrand factor (VWF) may lead to von Willebrand disease (VWD), which is a common inherited bleeding disorder. VWD is classified into three major types: type 1 is a partial quantitative deficiency of VWF, type 3 is a complete quantitative deficiency of VWF, and type 2 consists of qualitative abnormalities of VWF. To arrive at a correct VWD diagnosis, multiple tests and a correct interpretation of these tests are needed.

AIM

 The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the approach of laboratories toward VWD diagnosis.

METHODS

 Data from four samples of the external quality assessment (EQA) VWF surveys of the ECAT (External Quality Control for Assays and Tests) were evaluated. Furthermore, results were analyzed of a questionnaire that was sent to hemostasis laboratories about VWD diagnostic approaches.

RESULTS

 For most EQA samples, the majority of participants indicated the correct classification. However, 6 to 60% indicated another classification. For all samples, significant differences in VWF results were observed between the correct and incorrect classifications. The questionnaire demonstrated that the testing approach varied between the laboratories, especially for parameters that were essential for discrimination between VWD type 1 and healthy individuals, as well as the cutoff values used to discriminate VWD types 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS

 Diagnosis of VWD is heterogeneous in diagnostic approach, guidelines, and cutoff values within large ranges of VWF results between laboratories. Harmonization of approaches and increased accuracy of VWF measurements may help to establish a correct diagnosis.

How Do Laboratories Perform von Willebrand Disease Diagnostics and Classification of von Willebrand Disease Patients? Results from External Quality Data and an International Survey

Background Reduced or dysfunctional von Willebrand factor (VWF) may lead to von Willebrand disease (VWD), which is a common inherited bleeding disorder. VWD is classified into three major types: type 1 is a partial quantitative deficiency of VWF, type 3 is a complete quantitative deficiency of VWF, and type 2 consists of qualitative abnormalities of VWF. To arrive at a correct VWD diagnosis, multiple tests and a correct interpretation of these tests are needed.

Aim The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the approach of laboratories toward VWD diagnosis.

Methods Data from four samples of the external quality assessment (EQA) VWF surveys of the ECAT (External Quality Control for Assays and Tests) were evaluated. Furthermore, results were analyzed of a questionnaire that was sent to hemostasis laboratories about VWD diagnostic approaches.

Results For most EQA samples, the majority of participants indicated the correct classification. However, 6 to 60% indicated another classification. For all samples, significant differences in VWF results were observed between the correct and incorrect classifications. The questionnaire demonstrated that the testing approach varied between the laboratories, especially for parameters that were essential for discrimination between VWD type 1 and healthy individuals, as well as the cutoff values used to discriminate VWD types 1 and 2.

Conclusions Diagnosis of VWD is heterogeneous in diagnostic approach, guidelines, and cutoff values within large ranges of VWF results between laboratories. Harmonization of approaches and increased accuracy of VWF measurements may help to establish a correct diagnosis.

How Do Laboratories Perform von Willebrand Disease Diagnostics and Classification of von Willebrand Disease Patients? Results from External Quality Data and an International Survey

BACKGROUND

 Reduced or dysfunctional von Willebrand factor (VWF) may lead to von Willebrand disease (VWD), which is a common inherited bleeding disorder. VWD is classified into three major types: type 1 is a partial quantitative deficiency of VWF, type 3 is a complete quantitative deficiency of VWF, and type 2 consists of qualitative abnormalities of VWF. To arrive at a correct VWD diagnosis, multiple tests and a correct interpretation of these tests are needed.

AIM

 The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the approach of laboratories toward VWD diagnosis.

METHODS

 Data from four samples of the external quality assessment (EQA) VWF surveys of the ECAT (External Quality Control for Assays and Tests) were evaluated. Furthermore, results were analyzed of a questionnaire that was sent to hemostasis laboratories about VWD diagnostic approaches.

RESULTS

 For most EQA samples, the majority of participants indicated the correct classification. However, 6 to 60% indicated another classification. For all samples, significant differences in VWF results were observed between the correct and incorrect classifications. The questionnaire demonstrated that the testing approach varied between the laboratories, especially for parameters that were essential for discrimination between VWD type 1 and healthy individuals, as well as the cutoff values used to discriminate VWD types 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS

 Diagnosis of VWD is heterogeneous in diagnostic approach, guidelines, and cutoff values within large ranges of VWF results between laboratories. Harmonization of approaches and increased accuracy of VWF measurements may help to establish a correct diagnosis.