Genotypic and phenotypic features of Japanese patients with mild to moderate hemophilia A

Coagulation assay discrepancies in Japanese patients with non-severe hemophilia A

Patients with non-severe hemophilia A often show discrepancies in factor VIII (FVIII) activity. However, information on variant-specific coagulation assay characteristics in Japanese patients is limited. Pathogenic variants were classified into three groups, thrombin-cleavage site (TC), A1-A2-A3 interface (IF), and non-discrepant, with reference to previous studies. Cutoff values for the one-stage assay (OSA)/chromogenic substrate assay (CSA) ratio, which is suitable for distinguishing discrepancies, were determined for all five aPTT reagents. TGA and CWA parameters and bleeding scores were compared between groups. Two of the 39 patients with non-severe hemophilia A (5%) were classified as TC, 10 (26%) as IF, and 27 (69%) as non-discrepant. The OSA/CSA cutoff values between the groups varied widely by aPTT reagent and tended to be relatively low compared to previous studies. As an indicator of bleeding tendency, TGA had a low correlation coefficient for the IF variant, but this was not significant and was comparable to FVIII activity and CWA. Moreover, various parameters and bleeding tendency differed among patients with the same variants. Thus, our findings suggest that it is difficult to adequately assess the bleeding tendency of individual patients, even with the various assessments currently available.

Impact of variation in reagent combinations for one-stage clotting assay on assay discrepancy in nonsevere haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Factor VIII activity (FVIII:C) is measured by one-stage clotting assay (OSA) or chromogenic substrate assay (CSA). Significant differences in FVIII:C between OSA (FVIII:C_1st ) and CSA (FVIII:C_Chr ) are described as assay discrepancy in nonsevere haemophilia A (HA). A large number of reagent combinations (APTT reagent and FVIII-deficient plasma) are used for OSA, but the impact of variations in reagent combinations on assay discrepancy has not been fully characterized.

AIM

To clarify the variations in FVIII:C_1st /FVIII:C_Chr ratios according to OSA reagent combination in HA subjects with/without assay discrepancy.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients previously diagnosed with nonsevere HA were enrolled, and their FVIII genes were investigated and FVIII:C levels were assessed by a single CSA reagent and 11 OSA reagent combinations. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to predict possible cut-off values of the FVIII:C_1st /FVIII:C_Chr ratio to define FVIII assay discrepancy for each reagent combination.

RESULTS

Patients were categorized into nondiscrepant (n = 25), discrepant (n = 5) and unclassified (n = 9) groups according to their genotypes and information in the database. The FVIII:C_1st /FVIII:C_Chr ratio in nondiscrepant HA varied widely, depending on the APTT reagents and FVIII-deficient plasma used. The ratio in discrepant HA patients differed with respect to their genotype and the reagent combination used. ROC curve analyses revealed that cut-off values to distinguish the assay discrepancy differed depending on the reagents used, but revealed two novel genotype variants, p.Cys573Gly and p.Gly582Arg, associated with FVIII assay discrepancy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that the FVIII:C_1st /FVIII:C_Chr ratio is dependent on the reagent combination used for OSA.

Discrepant Hemophilia A: An Underdiagnosed Disease Entity

OBJECTIVES

The term discrepant hemophilia A (DHA) denotes the discrepancy between factor VIII activity (FVIII:C) measured by different assay methodologies in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A (HA). The objective was to review the characteristics and the current understanding of mechanisms contributing to assay discrepancy in DHA.

METHODS

Characteristics of the DHA patients treated were examined by retrospective chart review. In addition, a literature review was performed to determine the current understanding of DHA.

RESULTS

Three cases of DHA were diagnosed based on bleeding phenotype: 2 cases represented missed diagnoses of HA, and 1 represented misclassification of hemophilia severity. The revised diagnosis and classification of hemophilia directly affected clinical management. Review of the literature identified 18 articles with an estimated pooled prevalence of 36% (95% CI, 23%-56%; I2 = 85%; P < .01) among nonsevere HA. Furthermore, literature indicated that DHA is a feature of how different FVIII gene mutations affect FVIII:C activity within different assay methodologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience and literature review suggested that DHA is not only a laboratory phenomenon-it can affect clinical management in a subset of patients. A high index of suspicion for DHA is necessary while evaluating bleeding patients and/or classifying nonsevere HA.