A clinical-laboratory approach contributing to a rapid and reliable diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

A machine-learning model for reducing misdiagnosis in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A prospective, multicenter, observational study

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) at the bedside remains challenging, exposing a significant number of patients at risk of delayed diagnosis or overtreatment. We hypothesized that machine-learning algorithms could be utilized to develop a more accurate and user-friendly diagnostic tool that integrates diverse clinical and laboratory information and accounts for complex interactions.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study including 1393 patients with suspected HIT between 2018 and 2021 from 10 study centers. Detailed clinical information and laboratory data were collected, and various immunoassays were conducted. The washed platelet heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA) served as the reference standard.

FINDINGS

HIPA diagnosed HIT in 119 patients (prevalence 8.5%). The feature selection process in the training dataset (75% of patients) yielded the following predictor variables: (1) immunoassay test result, (2) platelet nadir, (3) unfractionated heparin use, (4) CRP, (5) timing of thrombocytopenia, and (6) other causes of thrombocytopenia. The best performing models were a support vector machine in case of the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) and the ELISA, as well as a gradient boosting machine in particle-gel immunoassay (PaGIA). In the validation dataset (25% of patients), the AUROC of all models was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00). Compared to the currently recommended diagnostic algorithm (4Ts score, immunoassay), the numbers of false-negative patients were reduced from 12 to 6 (-50.0%; ELISA), 9 to 3 (-66.7%, PaGIA) and 14 to 5 (-64.3%; CLIA). The numbers of false-positive individuals were reduced from 87 to 61 (-29.8%; ELISA), 200 to 63 (-68.5%; PaGIA) and increased from 50 to 63 (+29.0%) for the CLIA.

INTERPRETATION

Our user-friendly machine-learning algorithm for the diagnosis of HIT (https://toradi-hit.org) was substantially more accurate than the currently recommended diagnostic algorithm. It has the potential to reduce delayed diagnosis and overtreatment in clinical practice. Future studies shall validate this model in wider settings.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH).

Detection of Platelet-Activating Antibodies Associated with Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia by Flow Cytometry: An Italian Experience

Rare cases of thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after anti-COVID-19 adenovirus-associated mRNA vaccines (VITT) due to platelet-activating anti-platelet-factor 4 (PF4)/polyanion antibodies have been reported. VITT laboratory diagnosis, similarly to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) diagnosis, requires immunoassays for anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies identification, such as ELISA assays and platelet-activating functional tests, such as heparin-induced platelet activation test (HIPA), to confirm their pathogenicity. We compared the flow cytometry (FC) measurement of platelet p-selectin exposure to the gold standard functional test HIPA for diagnosis confirmation in 13 patients with a clinical VITT syndrome (6M/7F; median age 56 (33–78)) who resulted positive to anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies ELISA assays (12/13). FC and HIPA similarly identified three different patterns: (1) a typical non-heparin-dependent VITT pattern (seven and six patients by FC and HIPA, respectively); (2) low/no platelet activation in patients under IvIg therapy (five out of five and two out of four patients by FC and HIPA, respectively); (3) a HIT pattern. Antibodies investigated by FC became negative after 7, 17, and 24 days of therapy in three patients. FC measurement of P-selectin exposure was as sensitive as HIPA but simpler to detect anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies in VITT patients. FC could reliably discriminate VITT from HIT, thus helping for the choice of the anticoagulant.

Laboratory testing for suspected COVID-19 vaccine-induced (immune) thrombotic thrombocytopenia

COVID‐19 (coronavirus disease 2019) represents a pandemic, and several vaccines have been produced to prevent infection and/or severe sequelae associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection. There have been several reports of infrequent post vaccine associated thrombotic events, in particular for adenovirus‐based vaccines. These have variously been termed VIPIT (vaccine‐induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia), VITT (vaccine‐induced [immune] thrombotic thrombocytopenia), VATT (vaccine‐associated [immune] thrombotic thrombocytopenia), and TTS (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome). In this report, the laboratory test processes, as utilised to assess suspected VITT, are reviewed. In published reports to date, there are notable similarities and divergences in testing approaches, potentially leading to identification of slightly disparate patient cohorts. The key to appropriate identification/exclusion of VITT, and potential differentiation from heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITT), is identification of potentially differential test patterns. In summary, testing typically comprises platelet counts, D‐dimer, fibrinogen, and various immunological and functional assays for platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. In suspected VITT, there is a generally highly elevated level of D‐dimer, thrombocytopenia, and PF4 antibodies can be identified by ELISA‐based assays, but not by other immunological assays typically positive in HITT. In addition, in some functional platelet activation assays, standard doses of heparin have been identified to inhibit activation in suspected VITT, but they tend to augment activation in HITT. Conversely, it is also important to not over‐diagnose VITT, given that not all cases of thrombosis post vaccination will have an immune basis and not all PF4‐ELISA positive patients will be VITT.

Clinical and laboratory tests for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

A rapid diagnostic work-up is required in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). However, diagnosis of HIT is challenging due to a number of practical issues and methodological limitations. Many laboratory tests and a few clinical scoring systems are available but the individual characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy of these are hard to appraise. The 4Ts score is a well evaluated clinical assessment tool with the potential to rule out HIT in many patients. Still, it requires experience and is subject to a relevant inter-observer variability. Immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or recently developed rapid assays are able to exclude HIT in a number of patients. But, accuracy of immunoassays differs depending on type of assay, threshold, antibody specificity and even manufacturer. Due to a comparatively low positive predictive value, HIT cannot be confirmed by immunoassays alone. In addition, only some of them are immediately accessible, particularly in small laboratories. While functional assays such as the serotonin release assay (SRA) and the heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA) are considered as gold standard for diagnosis of HIT, they require a highly specialised laboratory. In addition, some of them are not adequately evaluated. In clinical practice, we recommend an integrated diagnostic approach combining not only clinical assessment (the 4Ts score) but immunoassays and functional assays as well. We propose a clear diagnostic algorithm supporting clinical decision-making. Furthermore, we provide an overview of all current laboratory techniques for HIT and discuss diagnostic pathways and strategies to reduce diagnostic errors, and future perspectives.

External validation of the HIT Expert Probability (HEP) score

The diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) can be challenging. The HIT Expert Probability (HEP) Score has recently been proposed to aid in the diagnosis of HIT. We sought to externally and prospectively validate the HEP score. We prospectively assessed pretest probability of HIT for 51 consecutive patients referred to our Consultative Service for evaluation of possible HIT between August 1, 2012 and February 1, 2013. Two Vascular Medicine fellows independently applied the 4T and HEP scores for each patient. Two independent HIT expert adjudicators rendered a diagnosis of HIT likely or unlikely. The median (interquartile range) of 4T and HEP scores were 4.5 (3.0, 6.0) and 5 (3.0, 8.5), respectively. There were no significant differences between area under receiver-operating characteristic curves of 4T and HEP scores against the gold standard, confirmed HIT [defined as positive serotonin release assay and positive anti-PF4/heparin ELISA] (0.74 vs 0.73, p = 0.97). HEP score ≥ 2 was 100 % sensitive and 16 % specific for determining the presence of confirmed HIT while a 4T score > 3 was 93 % sensitive and 35 % specific. In conclusion, the HEP and 4T scores are excellent screening pretest probability models for HIT, however, in this prospective validation study, test characteristics for the diagnosis of HIT based on confirmatory laboratory testing and expert opinion are similar. Given the complexity of the HEP scoring model compared to that of the 4T score, further validation of the HEP score is warranted prior to widespread clinical acceptance.

Over-testing for heparin induced thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a pro-thrombotic and potentially fatal complication of heparin therapy. Its diagnosis rests on high clinical probability and the laboratory demonstration of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. The high prevalence of thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients and the high sensitivity but low specificity of immunoassays for HIT antibodies can lead to over-testing and over-diagnosis. We conducted a study to review HIT screening practices in a tertiary care setting. We reviewed 63 consecutive patients undergoing testing for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies over 3 months. Pre-test probability for HIT was calculated using the 4T score. Sixty three patients underwent testing for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. Twenty one had been admitted for cardiovascular surgery, 5 for other surgery and 35 for non-surgical indications. Twenty nine patients (46 %) had low pre- test probability, twenty three (36.5 %) had intermediate probability, and eleven (17.4 %) had high pre-test probability of having HIT. Anti-PF4/heparin ELISA was positive in 8 of 63 patients. SRA was ordered for 16 patients and was positive in 5. Only five patients were diagnosed and treated for HIT. Over-testing for HIT is highly prevalent in a tertiary care setting. This increases cost and exposes patients to expensive anti-coagulation with its attendant risk of hemorrhage. The 4Ts score has been shown to have high sensitivity and may be used to rule out HIT in most situations, although its utility depends on subjective analysis. Consistently applying this in practice could minimize over-testing and facilitate safer, cost-effective care.

Evaluation of flow cytometric HIT assays in relation to an IgG-Specific immunoassay and clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe side effect of heparin treatment caused by platelet activating IgG antibodies generated against the platelet factor 4 (PF4)-heparin complex. Thrombocytopenia and thrombosis are the leading clinical symptoms of HIT.

METHODS

The clinical pretest probability of HIT was evaluated by the 4T score system. Laboratory testing of HIT was performed by immunological detection of antibodies against PF4-heparin complex (EIA) and two functional assays. Heparin-dependent activation of donor platelets by patient plasma was detected by flow cytometry. Increased binding of Annexin-V to platelets and elevated number of platelet-derived microparticles (PMP) were the indicators of platelet activation.

RESULTS

EIA for IgG isotype HIT antibodies was performed in 405 suspected HIT patients. Based on negative EIA results, HIT was excluded in 365 (90%) of cases. In 40 patients with positive EIA test result functional tests were performed. Platelet activating antibodies were detected in 17 cases by Annexin V binding. PMP count analysis provided nearly identical results. The probability of a positive flow cytometric assay result was higher in patients with elevated antibody titer. 71% of patients with positive EIA and functional assay had thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EIA is an important first line laboratory test in the diagnosis of HIT; however, HIT must be confirmed by a functional test. Annexin V binding and PMP assays using flow cytometry are functional HIT tests convenient in a clinical diagnostic laboratory. The positive results of functional assays may predict the onset of thrombosis. © 2016 International Clinical Cytometry Society.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The platelet factor 4/heparin ELISA has limited specificity for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and frequently does not provide same-day results. Rapid immunoassays (RIs) have been developed which provide results in 30 minutes or less. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RIs for HIT. We searched the literature for studies in which samples from patients with suspected HIT were tested using a RI and a functional assay against which the performance of the RI could be measured. We performed sensitivity analyses of studies that directly compared different RIs with each other and with ELISAs. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each RI were calculated. Twenty-three articles, collectively involving six different RIs, met eligibility criteria. All RIs exhibited high sensitivity (0.96 to 1.00); there was wider variability in specificity (0.68 to 0.94). Specificity of the IgG-specific chemiluminescent assay (IgG-CA) was greater than the polyspecific chemiluminescent assay [0.94 (95 %CI 0.89-0.99) vs 0.82 (0.77-0.87)]. The particle gel immunoassay demonstrated greater specificity than the polyspecific ELISA [0.96 (0.95-0.97) vs 0.91 (0.89-0.92)]. The IgG-CA and lateral flow immunoassay [0.94 (0.91-0.97)] exhibited greater specificity than the IgG-specific ELISA [0.86 (0.82-0.90)]. Given their high sensitivity and rapid turnaround time, RIs are a reliable means of excluding HIT at the point-of-care in patients with low or intermediate clinical probability. Additionally, some RIs have greater specificity than HIT ELISAs. In summary, IgG-specific RIs appear to have improved diagnostic accuracy compared with ELISAs in patients with suspected HIT and may reduce misdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Diagnostic value of immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunoassays are essential in the workup of patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, the diagnostic accuracy is uncertain with regard to different classes of assays, antibody specificities, thresholds, test variations, and manufacturers. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy measures of available immunoassays and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We performed comprehensive literature searches and applied strict inclusion criteria. Finally, 49 publications comprising 128 test evaluations in 15 199 patients were included in the analysis. Methodological quality according to the revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated with the unified model (comprising a bivariate random-effects model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model). Important differences were observed between classes of immunoassays, type of antibody specificity, thresholds, application of confirmation step, and manufacturers. Combination of high sensitivity (>95%) and high specificity (>90%) was found in 5 tests only: polyspecific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with intermediate threshold (Genetic Testing Institute, Asserachrom), particle gel immunoassay, lateral flow immunoassay, polyspecific chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with a high threshold, and immunoglobulin G (IgG)-specific CLIA with low threshold. Borderline results (sensitivity, 99.6%; specificity, 89.9%) were observed for IgG-specific Genetic Testing Institute-ELISA with low threshold. Diagnostic accuracy appears to be inadequate in tests with high thresholds (ELISA; IgG-specific CLIA), combination of IgG specificity and intermediate thresholds (ELISA, CLIA), high-dose heparin confirmation step (ELISA), and particle immunofiltration assay. When making treatment decisions, clinicians should be a aware of diagnostic characteristics of the tests used and it is recommended they estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using clinical scoring tools.

Prospective evaluation of a rapid nanoparticle-based lateral flow immunoassay (STic Expert(®) HIT) for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

A rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) (STic Expert(®) HIT), recently developed for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), was evaluated in a prospective multicentre cohort of 334 consecutive patients. The risk of HIT was estimated by the 4Ts score as low, intermediate and high in 28·7%, 61·7% and 9·6% of patients, respectively. Definite HIT was diagnosed in 40 patients (12·0%) with positive results on both enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Asserachrom(®) HPIA IgG) and serotonin release assay. The inter-reader reproducibility of results obtained was excellent (kappa ratio > 0·9). The negative predictive value of LFIA with plasma samples was 99·6% with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0·03, and was comparable to those of the particle gel immunoassay (H/PF4-PaGIA(®) ) performed in 124 cases. Positive predictive value and positive LR were 44·4% and 5·87, respectively, and the results were similar for serum samples. The probability of HIT in intermediate risk patients decreased from 11·2% to 0·4% when the LFIA result was negative and increased to 42·5% when it was positive. In conclusion, the STic Expert(®) HIT combined with the 4Ts score is a reliable tool to rule out the diagnosis of HIT.

Relationship between the 4Ts scoring system and the antiplatelet factor 4/heparin antibodies test in critically ill patients

Aim

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction and potentially progresses to fatal thrombosis. The 4Ts scoring system has been reported as a clinical pretest for HIT. However, its usefulness in critically ill patients has not yet been thoroughly examined. Thus, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of the 4Ts score in the diagnosis of HIT in critically ill patients.

Methods

One hundred and four critically ill patients who were admitted to our intensive care unit and who underwent the antiplatelet factor 4/heparin complex antibodies (PF4/heparin Ab) test with suspected HIT were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint variable was the 4Ts score. The secondary endpoint variables were laboratory data, length of stay, and mortality, compared between thePF4/heparin Ab positive and negative groups.

Results

There was no significant difference in the 4Ts scores between the PF4/heparin Ab positive and negative groups. The positive predictive value (HIT patients/4T high score patients) was 15.4% (2/13), the negative predictive value (non-HIT patients/4T low score patients) was 87.5% (42/48), and the false-negative rate for the 4Ts score (4T low score patients/HIT patients) was as high as 54.5% (6/11). The PF4/heparin Ab positive patients had longer stay in intensive care compared to the PF4/heparin Ab negative patients (P = 0.035).

Conclusions

The present study showed the discrepancy between the 4Ts score and PF4/heparin Ab. When HIT is suspected in critically ill patients, an immediate HIT antibody test and initiation of therapeutic management of HIT are required regardless of the 4Ts score.

The frequency of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in Taiwanese patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There are few studies on heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) reported from Taiwan and Asian countries. We conducted a prospective study to investigate the frequency of HIT in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgeries.

METHODS

A cohort of 54 patients was enrolled from January 01, 2010 to October 31, 2011. Patients' clinical information was obtained for 4T score classification. Plasma (2-4 mL) was also collected before surgery and on Days 5 and 10 following heparin administration during the bypass procedure. This was tested for anti-heparin/PF4 antibodies and functional assay using flow cytometry (FC).

RESULTS

The mean platelet count for this cohort followed the expected pattern in the postoperative setting. Seven of the 54 (13%) patients had positive antibodies assays before bypass surgery. This increased to 32% on Day 5 and was markedly elevated to 63% on Day 10 after surgery. Only one of the 54 patients (1.8%) was found to have both positive antibody assay and platelet activation, but no clinical HIT/thrombosis developed.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first report on the rates of HIT in the setting of cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in Taiwan and demonstrated no clinical HIT occurrence, despite the high frequency of HIT antibody in our cohort.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a review of concepts regarding a dangerous adverse drug reaction

Heparin is a natural agent with antithrombotic action, commercially available for therapeutic use as unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a serious adverse reaction to heparin that promotes antibody-mediated platelet activation. HIT is defined as a relative reduction in platelet count of 50% (even when the platelet count at its lowest level is above>150 x 10(9)/L) occurring within five to 14 days after initiation of the therapy. Thrombocytopenia is the main feature that directs the clinical suspicion of the reaction and the increased risk of thromboembolic complications is the most important and paradoxical consequence. The diagnosis is a delicate issue, and requires a combination of clinical probability and laboratory tests for the detection of platelet activation induced by HIT antibodies. The absolute risk of HIT has been estimated between 1% and 5% under treatment with unfractionated heparin, and less than 1% with low molecular weight heparin. However, high-quality evidence about the risk of HIT from randomized clinical trials is scarce. In addition, information on the frequency of HIT in developing countries is not widely available. This review aims to provide a better understanding of the key features of this reaction and updated information on its frequency to health professionals and other interested parties. Knowledge, familiarity, and access to therapeutic options for the treatment of this adverse reaction are mandatory to minimize the associated risks, improving patient safety.

Diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic disorder caused by antibodies to platelet factor 4/heparin (PF4/H) complexes. It presents with declining platelet counts 5 to 14 days after heparin administration and results in a predisposition to arterial and venous thrombosis. Establishing the diagnosis of HIT can be extremely challenging. It is essential to conduct a thorough clinical evaluation in addition to laboratory testing to confirm the presence of PF4/H antibodies. Multiple clinical algorithms have been developed to aid the clinician in predicting the likelihood of HIT. Once HIT is recognized, an alternative anticoagulant should be initiated to prevent further complications.

Antithrombotic therapy in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: guidelines translated for the clinician

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a clinicopathologic syndrome initiated by heparin exposure and characterized by thrombocytopenia and paradoxical thrombophilia. HIT is mediated by the formation of antibodies against the platelet factor 4/heparin complex, which leads to platelet activation, thrombin generation, and potentially fatal thrombotic sequelae. The clinical presentation of HIT is variable and can be easily overlooked. Although a number of functional and antigen-based immunoassays have been developed to detect the presence of HIT antibodies, initial diagnosis is often based on recognition of thrombocytopenia in the appropriate clinical context and later confirmed with immunologic testing. Given the serious clinical consequences of HIT, immediate cessation of heparin products and administration of non-heparin anticoagulants are crucial components of treatment. We provide a review of the clinical syndrome and practical summary of treatment recommendations from the most recent 2012 American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and prevention of HIT.

Predictive value of the 4Ts scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The 4Ts is a pretest clinical scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Although widely used in clinical practice, its predictive value for HIT in diverse settings and patient populations is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the predictive value of the 4Ts in patients with suspected HIT. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database, and ISI Web of Science for studies that included patients with suspected HIT, who were evaluated by both the 4Ts and a reference standard against which the 4Ts could be compared. Quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2 criteria. Thirteen studies, collectively involving 3068 patients, fulfilled eligibility criteria. A total of 1712 (55.8%) patients were classified by 4Ts score as having a low probability of HIT. The negative predictive value of a low probability 4Ts score was 0.998 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000) and remained high irrespective of the party responsible for scoring, the prevalence of HIT, or the composition of the study population. The positive predictive value of an intermediate and high probability 4Ts score was 0.14 (0.09-0.22) and 0.64 (0.40-0.82), respectively. A low probability 4Ts score appears to be a robust means of excluding HIT. Patients with intermediate and high probability scores require further evaluation.

Dynamic antibody-binding properties in the pathogenesis of HIT

Rapid laboratory assessment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is important for disease recognition and management. The utility of contemporary immunoassays to detect antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies is hindered by detection of antibodies unassociated with disease. To begin to distinguish properties of pathogenic anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, we compared isotype-matched monoclonal antibodies that bind to different epitopes: KKO causes thrombocytopenia in an in vivo model of HIT, whereas RTO does not. KKO binding to PF4 and heparin is specifically inhibited by human HIT antibodies that activate platelets, whereas inhibition of RTO binding is not differentially affected. Heparin increased the avidity of KKO binding to PF4 without affecting RTO, but it did not increase total binding or binding to nontetrameric PF4(K50E). Single-molecule forced unbinding demonstrated KKO was 8-fold more reactive toward PF4 tetramers and formed stronger complexes than RTO, but not to PF4(K50E) dimers. KKO, but not RTO, promoted oligomerization of PF4 but not PF4(K50E). This study reveals differences in the properties of anti-PF4 antibodies that cause thrombocytopenia not revealed by ELISA that correlate with oligomerization of PF4 and sustained high-avidity interactions that may simulate transient antibody-antigen interactions in vivo. These differences suggest the potential importance of epitope specificity in the pathogenesis of HIT.

Treatment and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an antibody-mediated adverse drug reaction that can lead to devastating thromboembolic complications, including pulmonary embolism, ischemic limb necrosis necessitating limb amputation, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

Among the key recommendations for this article are the following: For patients receiving heparin in whom clinicians consider the risk of HIT to be > 1%, we suggest that platelet count monitoring be performed every 2 or 3 days from day 4 to day 14 (or until heparin is stopped, whichever occurs first) (Grade 2C). For patients receiving heparin in whom clinicians consider the risk of HIT to be < 1%, we suggest that platelet counts not be monitored (Grade 2C). In patients with HIT with thrombosis (HITT) or isolated HIT who have normal renal function, we suggest the use of argatroban or lepirudin or danaparoid over other nonheparin anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with HITT and renal insufficiency, we suggest the use of argatroban over other nonheparin anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with acute HIT or subacute HIT who require urgent cardiac surgery, we suggest the use of bivalirudin over other nonheparin anticoagulants or heparin plus antiplatelet agents (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies evaluating the role of fondaparinux and the new oral anticoagulants in the treatment of HIT are needed.

Usefulness of anti-PF4/heparin antibody test for intensive care unit patients with thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

It is critical to differentiate heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) from disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in heparinized intensive care unit (ICU) patients with thrombocytopenia because the therapeutic approach differs based on the cause. We investigated the usefulness of PF4/heparin antibody tests in these patients.

METHODS

A total of 127 heparinized ICU patients whose platelet counts were <150×10(9)/L or reduced by >50% after 5-10 days of heparin therapy were enrolled. PF4/heparin antibodies were measured using 2 immunoassays. We assessed the probability of HIT by using Warkentin's 4T's scoring system for antibody positive patients and compared routinely performed coagulation test results between patients with and without antibodies to evaluate the ability of these tests to discriminate between HIT and DIC.

RESULTS

Positive results were obtained for 14 (11.0%) and 11 (8.7%) patients in the 2 assays. The analysis performed using the 4T's scoring system revealed that 11 of 20 (15.7%) patients with antibodies in at least 1 assay had intermediate or greater probability of HIT. Patients without antibodies had significantly higher levels of D-dimer than those with antibodies. However, there were no intergroup differences in platelet counts, PT, aPTT, fibrinogen, DIC score, and rate of overt DIC.

CONCLUSION

Seropositivity for PF4/heparin antibody was 8.7-11.0% in the patients with thrombocytopenia, and more than a half of them had an increased probability of HIT. Among the routine coagulation tests, only D-dimer was informative for differentiating HIT from DIC. PF4/heparin antibody test is useful to ensure appropriate treatment for thrombocytopenic heparinized ICU patients.

How I treat heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a prothrombotic adverse drug effect induced by platelet-activating antibodies against multimolecular complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Diagnosis rests on a clinical assessment of disease probability and laboratory testing. Management involves immediate discontinuation of heparin and initiation of an alternative anticoagulant. Because of the frequency of thrombocytopenia among heparinized patients, the limited specificity of widely available immunoassays, the limited availability of more specific functional assays, and clinicians' fears of missing a case of true disease, overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment have become common. As a result, a substantial number of thrombocytopenic patients are unnecessarily exposed to costly alternative anticoagulants and their attendant risk of bleeding. In this review, we describe not only our approach to the evaluation and management of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, but also the measures we use to minimize misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment of patients without the disease. In addition, we propose areas of investigation for improvement of the diagnosis and management of this potentially fatal disorder.

Validation of whole blood impedance aggregometry as a new diagnostic tool for HIT: results of a large Australian study

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a challenge, with diagnosis confirmed only by functional assays. The gold standard 14C-serotonin release assay (SRA) is highly sensitive but technically challenging and unsuitable for routine use. We conducted a large study to validate whole blood impedance aggregometry (WBIA) as a suitable diagnostic tool for HIT. WBIA and SRA were used to test 181 samples positive for H-PF4 antibodies by PaGIA or ELISA. Using the same high responder donor, 77 samples were positive by WBIA (aggregation with low-dose but not high-dose heparin). Using the strict definition for SRA positivity, 72 samples were true HIT. In nine samples, serotonin release with high-dose heparin dropped by > 50% but was still >20%; these were retested after a one-half dilution and 8/9 became positive. Ten other samples were discrepant between the two assays: one strongly positive (89% release) and six weakly positive samples by SRA (average release 56%) were WBIA negative. When these samples were retested using a random donor, only two remained SRA positive. Three samples were strongly WBIA positive but SRA negative; two were retested by SRA with 0.5IU/ml heparin and one became positive. Under controlled conditions, using the same selected high-responder donor, WBIA and SRA performed similarly with slightly increased sensitivity of the WBIA when using the strict definition of SRA positivity. WBIA is easy to perform with rapid turn-around time and warrants a multi-laboratory trial to complete its validation as a confirmatory assay for platelet-activating HIT antibodies.

Adverse effects of heparin

All the adverse effects of heparins are related to their wide variety of biological activities, with bleeding being the most important safety issue, resulting directly from the potency of heparin as an anticoagulant. However, it is hard to define the bleeding risk, since it depends on numerous parameters including the indication, dosage, method, and duration of heparin application, the clinical study design and definition of bleeding as well as patient characteristics and determinants of bleeding such as type of surgery and co-medication. Nonbleeding complications of heparins are caused by binding of heparin molecules to proteins other than antithrombin and to cells, which is generally more pronounced with unfractionated heparin than with low-molecular-weight heparins. Accordingly, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the most severe nonbleeding adverse reaction, occurs about 10 times less with low-molecular-weight heparins than with unfractionated heparin. Frequent and therefore important adverse reactions of heparins are skin lesions resulting from delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. All the other undesirable effects are discussed as well, but they are mostly clinically irrelevant.

Recent advances in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic complication of heparin therapy caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4/heparin complexes. Progress in our understanding of HIT has translated to improvements in treatment and patient outcomes. The objective of this review is to examine recent advances and highlight areas of future inquiry in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of this potentially fatal disorder.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk factors for the development of HIT related to heparin administration are well described. Recent identification of host-related risk factors adds to our understanding of disease epidemiology. The limited specificity of clinical diagnosis and widely used immunologic assays for HIT results in frequent overdiagnosis. Novel clinical decision rules and laboratory assays to improve diagnosis are in development. Fondaparinux, bivalirudin, and desirudin have recently been added to the HIT armamentarium.

SUMMARY

Despite these advances, critical issues remain to be addressed. Future research efforts will focus on the identification of novel clinical risk factors and biomarkers that will enable recognition of individuals at greatest risk, optimization of diagnostic strategies and use of currently available therapeutics, and development of new drugs that not only reduce thrombotic complications, but also minimize bleeding risk, are well tolerated in patients with organ dysfunction, and facilitate transition to outpatient therapy.

Rapid exclusion or confirmation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a single-center experience with 1,291 patients

BACKGROUND

The current gold-standard for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is the detection of platelet-activating antibodies by means of functional assays which, since they are time consuming and not widely available, are not suited to guiding acute treatment decisions. The objective of our study was to assess the ability of more rapid immunoassays to predict the presence of functionally relevant anti-platelet factor 4/heparin-antibodies.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed 1,291 of 1,383 (93.4%) patients consecutively evaluated for suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia at our institution. Clinical pre-test probability was defined by the 4T-score. Anti-platelet factor 4/heparin-antibodies were measured with three immunoassays (ID-H/PF4-PaGIA, Asserachrom-HPIA, and GTI-PF4) and their functional relevance was assessed by a two-point heparin-induced platelet aggregation test. Performance of the immunoassays was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1,291 patients, 96 (7.4%) had a positive heparin-induced platelet aggregation-test: 7 of 859 (0.8%) with a low, 50 of 358 (14.0%) with an intermediate, and 39 of 74 (52.7%) with a high 4T-score. Receiver operating characteristics analysis indicated that best immunoassay thresholds for predicting a positive platelet aggregation test were: Titer of 4 or more (ID-H/PF4-PaGIA), optical density more than 0.943 (Asserachrom-HPIA) and more than 1.367 (GTI-PF4). A 100% negative predictive value was observed at the following thresholds: Titer of 1 or under (ID-H/PF4-PaGIA), optical density less than 0.300 (Asserachrom-HPIA) and less than 0.870 (GTI-PF4). A 100% positive predictive value was reached only by ID-H/PF4-PaGIA, at titers of 32 or over. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for results between the thresholds with 100% negative or positive predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that: i) negative and weak positive results of immunoassays detecting anti-platelet factor 4/heparin-antibodies exclude heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; ii) anti-platelet factor 4/heparin-antibody titers of 32 or over (ID-H/PF4-PaGIA) have a 100% positive predictive value for functionally relevant antibodies; iii) combining the clinical pre-test probability with the likelihood ratio of intermediate immunoassay results allows assessment of post-test probability for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in individual patients.

Analysis of marker compounds with anti-platelet aggregation effects in Mailuoning injection using platelet binding assay combined with HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS and solid-phase extraction technique

INTRODUCTION

Mailuoning is prepared from a traditional formula of Chinese medicines and widely used as an antithrombotic agent. In this study, the platelet binding assay was used as a novel biospecific separation and analysis method to explore its active constituents, which could be considered as marker compounds for quality control.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a rapid and simple method to predict marker compounds in herbal medicine injection and evaluate the effects of those compounds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Platelets were used to bind and separate constituents. Binding constituents were analysed and taken as potential active compounds for further evaluation. Solid-phase-extraction was adopted to improve sensitivity. HPLC-DAD and ESI-MS were used to determine the binding constituents.

RESULTS

Five compounds were extracted through the platelet binding process and identified as neochlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, isochlorogenic acid and their isomers. Caffeic acid was selected for the flow cytometric assay to test its effect on platelets activation, which was determined by CD62P (P-selectin) expression. The results indicated that caffeic acid could significantly inhibit platelet activation while chlorogenic acid did not.

CONCLUSION

Caffeic acid could be considered as a marker compound of Mailuoning injection due to its anti-platelet effect. The study also suggested that platelet binding assay combined with some preconcentration technique could be efficiently used to predict anti-platelet compounds in complicated herbal medicines.

The HIT Expert Probability (HEP) Score: a novel pre-test probability model for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia based on broad expert opinion

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is challenging. Over-diagnosis and over-treatment are common.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a pre-test clinical scoring model for HIT based on broad expert opinion that may be useful in guiding clinical decisions regarding therapy.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A pre-test model, the HIT Expert Probability (HEP) Score, was constructed based on the opinions of 26 HIT experts. Fifty patients referred to a reference laboratory for HIT testing comprised the validation cohort. Two hematology trainees scored each patient using the HEP Score and a previously published clinical scoring system (4 T's). A panel of three independent experts adjudicated the 50 patients and rendered a diagnosis of HIT likely or unlikely. All subjects underwent HIT laboratory testing with a polyspecific HIT ELISA and serotonin release assay (SRA).

RESULTS

The HEP Score exhibited significantly greater interobserver agreement [intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) vs. 0.71 (0.54-0.83)], correlation with the results of HIT laboratory testing and concordance with the diagnosis of the expert panel (area under receiver-operating curve: 0.91 vs. 0.74, P = 0.017) than the 4 T's. The model was 100% sensitive and 60% specific for determining the presence of HIT as defined by the expert panel and would have allowed for a 41% reduction in the number of patients receiving a direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI).

CONCLUSION

The HEP Score is the first pre-test clinical scoring model for HIT based on broad expert opinion, exhibited favorable operating characteristics and may permit clinicians to confidently reduce use of alternative anticoagulants. Prospective multicenter validation is warranted.

Year in review 2008: Critical Care--nephrology

We summarize original research in the field of critical care nephrology accepted or published during 2008 in Critical Care and, when considered relevant or directly linked to this research, in other journals. Three main topics have been identified for a rapid overview. (1) The classification of acute kidney injury, with particular attention to differences and similarities between the RIFLE and AKIN classifications. (2) Fluid balance in patients requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) has been shown as an independent risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients: current evidence and uncertainties are described. (3) Management of anticoagulation during RRT has been explored by several researchers in 2008: diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the use of tirofiban and optimal anticoagulation during drotrecogin A activated treatment have been evaluated.

Variability of anti-PF4/heparin antibody results obtained by the rapid testing system ID-H/PF4-PaGIA

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that a low clinical pretest probability may be adequate for excluding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, for patients with intermediate or high pretest probability, laboratory testing is essential for confirming or refuting the diagnosis. Rapid assessment of anti-PF4/heparin-antibodies may assist clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of rapid ID-H/PF4-PaGIA. In particular, we verified reproducibility of results between plasma and serum specimens, between fresh and frozen samples, and between different ID-H/PF4-polymer lots (polystyrene beads coated with heparin/PF4-complexes).

PATIENTS/METHODS

The samples studied were 1376 plasma and 914 corresponding serum samples from patients investigated for suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia between January 2000 and October 2008. Anti-PF4/heparin-antibodies were assessed by ID-H/PF4-PaGIA, commercially available ELISAs and heparin-induced platelet aggregation test.

RESULTS

Among 914 paired plasma/serum samples we noted discordant results (negative vs. low-titre positive) in nine instances (1%; 95%CI, 0.4-1.6%). Overall, agreement between titres assessed in plasma vs. serum was highly significant (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.975; P < 0.0001). Forty-seven samples tested both fresh and after freezing/thawing showed a good agreement, with one discordant positive/negative result (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.970; P < 0.0001). Among 1376 plasma samples we noted a strikingly variable incidence of false negative results (none - 82%; 95%CI, 66-98%), depending on the employed ID-H/PF4-polymer lot. Faulty lots can be recognized by titrating commercial positive controls and stored samples of HIT-patients.

CONCLUSION

Laboratories performing the assay should implement stringent internal quality controls in order to recognize potentially faulty ID-H/PF4-polymer lots, thus avoiding false negative results.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. A contemporary clinical approach to diagnosis and management

Thrombocytopenia following heparin administration can be associated with an immune reaction, now referred to as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). HIT is essentially a prothrombotic disorder mediated by an IgG antiplatelet factor 4/heparin antibody, which induces platelet, endothelial cell, monocyte, and other cellular activation, leading to thrombin generation and thrombotic complications. Indeed, HIT can also be regarded as a serious adverse drug effect. Importantly, HIT can be a life-threatening and limb-threatening condition frequently associated with characteristically severe and extensive thromboembolism (both venous and arterial) rather than with bleeding. This article provides an overview of HIT, with an emphasis on the clinical diagnosis and management.