Neutralising rivaroxaban induced interference in laboratory testing for lupus anticoagulant (LA): A comparative study using DOAC Stop and andexanet alfa

Testing for the lupus anticoagulant: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) represents 1 of the laboratory criteria for classification of patients as having definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The other 2 laboratory criteria are anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies. At least 1 of these antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) tests need to be positive, with evidence of persistence, together with evidence of at least 1 clinical criterion for APS, before a patient can be classified as having definite APS. LA and other aPL assays are also important for diagnosis or exclusion of APS, as well as for risk stratification, with triple-positive patients carrying the greatest risk. Whereas LA is identified through "uncalibrated" clot-based assays, the other aPL assays (anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies) represent immunological assays, identified using calibrated solid-phase methods. Because LA is identified using clot-based assays, it is subject to considerable preanalytical and analytical issues that challenge accurate detection or exclusion of LA. In this narrative review, we take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of LA testing, primarily focusing on the last 10 years. Although harmonization of LA testing as a result of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidance documents and other international activities has led to improvements in LA detection, many challenges remain. In particular, several anticoagulants, especially direct oral anticoagulants and also vitamin K antagonists, given as therapy to treat the pathophysiological consequences of aPL, especially thrombosis, interfere with LA assays and can generate false-positive or false-negative LA findings. Overcoming these diagnostic errors will require a multifaceted approach with clinicians and laboratories working together.

Simplified Method for Removing Direct Oral Anticoagulant Interference in Mechanical Coagulation Test Systems-A Proof of Concept

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) cause unwanted interference in various hemostasis assays, including lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, where false positive and false negative identification may occur. DOAC Stop (DS) is an activated charcoal (AC) product used to specifically and effectively adsorb DOACs from test plasma. This process normally requires plasma treatment, centrifugation and plasma separation prior to tests, but inexperienced operators may also inadvertently transfer residual AC particles, thereby potentially adversely affecting clot detection.

METHODS

We hypothesized that residual DS might not be problematic for mechanical clot detection. We therefore investigated the potential impact of DS and a new DS liquid (DS-L) product on clotting tests using a mechanical clot detection system. Varying concentrations of DS were added to normal and abnormal plasmas with and without DOAC presence. Clotting tests including PT, APTT and dRVVT were performed directly in the analyzer without plasma/DS centrifugation.

RESULTS

DS up to double the recommended treatment level had only minor effects on all test results, despite completely obscuring visibility in the plasma/reagent mix. This confirms that the centrifugation step may be able to be omitted when using mechanical detection systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Should DS carryover into treated plasmas occur, this should not cause issues with testing performed on mechanical clot-sensing devices. Moreover, we hypothesize that DS can be used directly in these systems, without the need for centrifugation, thereby simplifying its many potential applications.

Case Report: In situ pulmonary artery thrombosis in a 12-year-old girl classified as systemic lupus erythematosus

In situ pulmonary artery thrombosis (ISPAT) is a relatively rare but potentially life-threatening complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in children. We report the case of a 12-year-old girl who presented with fever, chest pain, and dyspnea. Immune thrombocytopenia was identified due to purpura and menorrhagia 3 months before presentation with a lowest platelet count of 12 × 109/L. The sudden onset of fever, chest pain, and dyspnea were misdiagnosed as hyperinflammatory responses caused by pneumonia; these symptoms ameliorated with glucocorticoid and antibiotic treatment. The reappearance of symptoms after dose reduction of glucocorticoids and the observation of bloody bronchoalveolar lavage fluid necessitated further evaluation. Pulmonary artery thrombosis/embolism was identified using computed tomography pulmonary angiography and high D-dimer quantitative level of 4,118 μg/L (normal <252 μg/L). Ultrasonography of the deep and superficial veins of both lower limbs and renal veins revealed no thrombosis, suggesting the diagnosis of ISPAT. Further etiological evaluation revealed positive antinuclear antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and anti-SSA antibodies, confirming SLE. Repeated normal urine analysis indicated that lupus nephritis was unlikely. Further, the negative anticardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein antibodies and temporary positive lupus anticoagulant suggested that antiphospholipid syndrome was unlikely. The patient received anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate therapy. Her symptoms gradually improved, and she was discharged. At the 1-month follow-up, the thrombosis had resolved. During the 1-year follow-up, her condition remained well without SLE relapse. Our experience with this case emphasizes searching for SLE in the case of ISPAT and pulmonary hemorrhages. ISPAT can occur in children with SLE and may be caused by hyperinflammatory response during SLE flare.

Evolution of Hemostasis Testing: A Personal Reflection Covering over 40 Years of History

There is no certainty in change, other than change is certain. As Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis celebrates 50 years of publication, I felt it appropriate to reflect on my own 40-year plus scientific career. My career in the thrombosis and hemostasis field did not start until 1987, but the subsequent 35 years reflected a period of significant change in associated disease diagnostics. I started in the Westmead Hospital "coagulation laboratory" when staff were still performing manual clotting tests, using stopwatches, pipettes, test tubes, and a water bath, which we transported to the hospital outpatient department to run our weekly warfarin clinic. Several hemostasis instruments have come and gone, including the Coag-A-Mate X2, the ACL-300R, the MDA-180, the BCS XP, and several StaR Evolution analyzers. Some instruments remain, including the PFA-100, PFA-200, the AggRAM, the CS-5100, an AcuStar, a Hydrasys gel system, and two ACL-TOP 750s. We still have a water bath, but this is primarily used to defrost frozen samples, and manual clotting tests are only used to teach visiting medical students. We have migrated across several methodologies in the 45-year history of the local laboratory. Laurel gel rockets, used for several assays in the 1980s, were replaced with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay assays and most assays were eventually placed on automated instruments. Radio-isotopic assays, used in the 1980s, were replaced by an alternate safer method or else abandoned. Test numbers have increased markedly over time. The approximately 31,000 hemostasis assays performed at the Westmead-based laboratory in 1983 had become approximately 200,000 in 2022, a sixfold increase. Some 90,000 prothrombin times and activated partial thromboplastic times are now performed at this laboratory per year. Thrombophilia assays were added to the test repertoires over time, as were the tests to measure several anticoagulant drugs, most recently the direct oral anticoagulants. I hope my personal history, reflecting on the changes in hemostasis testing over my career to date in the field, is found to be of interest to the readership, and I hope they forgive any inaccuracies I have introduced in this reflection of the past.

16th International congress on antiphospholipid antibodies task force report on antiphospholipid syndrome laboratory diagnostics and trends

Classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) require IgG or IgM isotypes of the anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) antibodies, and/or the lupus anticoagulant (LA) to satisfy the laboratory disease definition. Over the past 20 years, non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) directed to other proteins of the coagulation cascade (i.e. prothrombin and/or phosphatidylserine-prothrombin complex) or to some domains of β2GPI have been proposed. This task force concentrated and reviewed the literature on data including aPS/PT, antibodies to domain 4/5 of β2GPI and the newly described antibodies to protein/HLA-DR complex. In addition, we discussed testing of LA in the 'new' oral anticoagulants' era and the value of triple positivity in the risk assessment of aPL. The conclusions were presented at a special session during the 16th International Congress on aPL, Manchester, UK, September 2019.

Variable Performance of Lupus Anticoagulant Testing: The Australasian/Asia-Pacific Experience

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of three tests identified as laboratory criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The other two tests are anticardiolipin antibody (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibody. The presence of LA is assessed using clot-based tests, while the presence of aCL and aβ2GPI is assessed by immunological assays. Since no test can be considered 100% sensitive or specific for LA, current guidelines recommend using two different clot-based assays reflecting different principles, with the dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) recommended. Initially, LA-sensitive reagents are used to screen for LA, and then, in "screen-positive" samples, LA-"insensitive" reagents are used to confirm LA. Because LA assays are based on clot detection, anything that can interfere with fibrin clot development may affect test results. In particular, in addition to LA, the tests are also sensitive to the presence of a wide range of clinical anticoagulants, reflecting preanalytical issues for testing. We provide updated findings for LA testing in our geographic region, using recent data from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs, an international external quality assessment program with approximately 120 participants. Data show a wide variety of assays in use, especially for aPTT testing, and variable outcomes in reported numerical values with these assays when assessing proficiency samples. dRVVT testing mostly comprised reagents from three main manufacturing suppliers, which also showed differences in numerical values for the same homogeneous tested samples. Nevertheless, despite the use of different test reagents and processes, >98% of participants correctly identified LA-negative samples as LA-negative and LA-positive samples as LA positive. We hope our findings, reflecting on the heterogeneity of test processes and test data, help improve diagnostic testing for LA in the future.

Removing direct oral factor Xa inhibitor interferences from routine and specialised coagulation assays using a raw activated charcoal product

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. However, DOACs are associated with extensive interference in coagulation assays. Herein, we evaluate raw activated charcoal (AC) as an adsorbent material, to minimise DOAC-associated interferences in routine and specialised coagulation parameters on CS-series analysers (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan).

METHODS

Commercial human-derived non-anticoagulated plasma materials, with or without increasing concentrations of anticoagulant, were assayed for routine and specialised coagulation parameters before and after treatment with AC.

RESULTS

Treatment of non-anticoagulated plasma with raw AC had minimal impact on routine and specialised coagulation parameters available on the CS-series; however, clinically relevant prolongations of certain activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)-based assays were observed after treatment. Furthermore, in apixaban- and rivaroxaban-containing plasma material, AC efficiently adsorbed therapeutic and supratherapeutic DOAC concentrations; and, treatment with raw AC resolved DOAC-associated interferences on all affected routine and specialised coagulation parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, raw AC efficiently adsorbed apixaban and rivaroxaban from human-derived plasma, without significantly affecting the majority of underlying routine and specialised coagulation parameters available on CS-series analysers.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Activated Protein C Resistance and Factor V Leiden

The factor V Leiden (FVL) polymorphism is known as the most common inherited risk factor for venous thrombosis. In turn, FVL is the leading cause of an activated protein C resistance (APCR) phenotype, in which the addition of exogenous activated protein C to plasma does not result in the expected anticoagulant effect. In the routine laboratory approach to the formal diagnosis of FVL, an initial positive screening plasma-based method for APCR is often performed, and only if needed, this is followed by a confirmatory DNA-based assay for FVL. Multiple methods with accepted sensitivity and specificity for determining an APCR/FVL phenotype are commonly categorized into two separate groups: (1) screening plasma-based assays, including qualitative functional clot-based assays, for APCR, and (2) confirmatory DNA-based molecular assays, entailing several tests and platforms, including polymerase chain reaction-based and non-PCR-based techniques, for FVL. This review will describe the methodological aspects of each laboratory test and prepare suggestions on the indication of APCR and FVL testing and method selection.

The methods for removal of direct oral anticoagulants and heparins to improve the monitoring of hemostasis: a narrative literature review

The assessment of hemostasis is necessary to make suitable decisions on the management of patients with thrombotic disorders. In some clinical situations, for example, during thrombophilia screening, the presence of anticoagulants in sample makes diagnosis impossible. Various elimination methods may overcome anticoagulant interference. DOAC-Stop, DOAC-Remove and DOAC Filter are available methods to remove direct oral anticoagulants in diagnostic tests, although there are still reports on their incomplete efficacy in several assays. The new antidotes for direct oral anticoagulants - idarucizumab and andexanet alfa - could be potentially useful, but have their drawbacks. The necessity to remove heparins is also arising as heparin contamination from central venous catheter or therapy with heparin disturbs the appropriate hemostasis assessment. Heparinase and polybrene are already present in commercial reagents but a fully-effective neutralizer is still a challenge for researchers, thus promising candidates remain in the research phase.

Hemostasis and Thrombosis: An Overview Focusing on Associated Laboratory Testing to Diagnose and Help Manage Related Disorders

Hemostasis is a complex but balanced process that permit normal blood flow, without adverse events. Disruption of the balance may lead to bleeding or thrombotic events, and clinical interventions may be required. Hemostasis laboratories typically offer an array of tests, including routine coagulation and specialized hemostasis assays used to guide clinicians for diagnosing and managing patients. Routine assays may be used to screen patients for hemostasis-related disturbances but may also be used for drug monitoring, measuring efficacy of replacement or adjunctive therapy, and other indications, which may then be used to guide further patient management. Similarly, "specialized" assays are used for diagnostic purposes or may be used to monitor or measure efficacy of a given therapy. This chapter provides an overview of hemostasis and thrombosis, with a focus on laboratory testing that may be used to diagnose and help manage patients suspected of hemostasis- and thrombosis-related disorders.

An Overview of Laboratory Testing for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) represent a group of autoantibodies directed against phospholipids. These antibodies may arise in a number of autoimmune conditions, of which the antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS) is best recognized. aPL can be detected by various laboratory assays, essentially comprising both solid-phase (immunological) assays and "liquid-phase" clotting assays identifying so-called lupus anticoagulants (LA). aPL are associated with various adverse pathologies, including thrombosis and placental/fetal morbidity and mortality. The type of aPL present, as well as the pattern of reactivity, is variously associated with the severity of the pathology. Thus, laboratory testing for aPL is indicated to help assess the future risk of such events, as well as representing certain "classification" criteria for APS, also used as surrogates for diagnostic criteria. The current chapter overviews the laboratory tests available to measure aPL and their potential clinical utility.

Autoimmune Diseases Affecting Hemostasis: A Narrative Review

Hemostasis reflects a homeostatic mechanism that aims to balance out pro-coagulant and anti-coagulant forces to maintain blood flow within the circulation. Simplistically, a relative excess of procoagulant forces can lead to thrombosis, and a relative excess of anticoagulant forces can lead to bleeding. There are a wide variety of congenital disorders associated with bleeding or thrombosis. In addition, there exist a vast array of autoimmune diseases that can also lead to either bleeding or thrombosis. For example, autoantibodies generated against clotting factors can lead to bleeding, of which acquired hemophilia A is the most common. As another example, autoimmune-mediated antibodies against phospholipids can generate a prothrombotic milieu in a condition known as antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS). Moreover, there exist various autoimmunity promoting environments that can lead to a variety of antibodies that affect hemostasis. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents perhaps the contemporary example of such a state, with potential development of a kaleidoscope of such antibodies that primarily drive thrombosis, but may also lead to bleeding on rarer occasions. We provide here a narrative review to discuss the interaction between various autoimmune diseases and hemostasis.

Rapid Detection of Apixaban by a ROTEM-Based Approach and Reversibility with Andexanet Alfa or DOAC-Stop

Background  A rapid test to detect apixaban treatment would be useful in acute situations such as major bleeding, urgent surgery, or in acute thrombosis.

Objective  This article aims to study if the viscoelastic test rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) can rapidly detect apixaban in whole blood using modified triggers based on factor Xa (FXa) or Russell viper venom (RVV).

Method  ROTEM clotting time (CT) was measured in samples from 40 patients on apixaban treatment, and in vitro in samples spiked with apixaban (20–500 ng/mL). Commercially available trigger Ex-tem was compared with modified triggers based on FXa or RVV. Reversibility of apixaban in the samples was studied; CT was measured with and without addition of DOAC-Stop or andexanet alfa, respectively, and the difference in CT was calculated (CT _diff ).

Results  Using FXa as trigger, we detected apixaban concentrations at 20 ng/mL and above with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity in patient samples and in vitro. Corresponding data for Ex-tem were 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity in patients, and 94% sensitivity and 100% specificity in vitro, and for RVV 97% sensitivity and 94% specificity in patients, and 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity in vitro, respectively. CT _diff data were similar. Patient sample data were obtained within 20 minutes from sampling.

Conclusion  Apixaban at low therapeutic concentrations was detected within 20 minutes, and with high sensitivity and specificity. A trigger based on FXa outperformed the commercial trigger Ex-tem and a trigger based on RVV. ROTEM with a FXa-based trigger is a promising method to detect apixaban bedside in acute settings.

Performance Characteristics of DOAC-Remove for Neutralization of the Effects of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban in Lupus Anticoagulant Assays

OBJECTIVES

This study established the performance characteristics of DOAC-Remove for neutralization of the effects of rivaroxaban and apixaban in lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing.

METHODS

Normal donor, LAC control, and patient samples were spiked with rivaroxaban or apixaban to simulate their effects on the dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and dilute prothrombin time (dPT). Anti-Xa activity was measured after spiking and after DOAC-Remove neutralization. Accuracy, complex precision, and reference interval verification were evaluated.

RESULTS

DOAC-Remove neutralized rivaroxaban and apixaban concentrations as high as 415 ng/mL and 333 ng/mL, respectively. Percentage positive and negative agreement between the baseline and postneutralization interpretations were 75% or higher for the dRVVT and APTT methods but not for the dPT method. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were 10% or less for all assays except the Staclot-LA delta, which had a standard deviation of 2.5 seconds or CV of 25% or less depending on the level. The laboratory's reference intervals were verified for the dRVVT and APTT assays after DOAC-Remove treatment but not for the dPT assays.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Remove appears to have acceptable performance characteristics for neutralizing the effects of rivaroxaban and apixaban in the dRVVT and APTT methods but not in the dPT method.

Inherited Thrombophilia in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Severe inherited thrombophilia includes rare deficiencies of natural anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and homozygous or combined factor V Leiden and FII G20210A variants. They are associated with a high thrombosis risk and can impact the duration of anticoagulation therapy for patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) event. Therefore, it is important to diagnose thrombophilia and to use adapted anticoagulant therapy. The widespread use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) for VTE has raised new issues concerning inherited thrombophilia. Concerning inherited thrombophilia diagnosis, DOACs are directed toward either FIIa or FXa and can therefore interfere with coagulation assays. This paper reports DOAC interference in several thrombophilia tests, including the assessment of antithrombin, protein S, and protein C activities. Antithrombin activity and clot-based assays used for proteins C and S can be overestimated, with a risk of missing a deficiency. The use of a device to remove DOACs should be considered to minimize the risk of false-negative results. The place of DOACs in the treatment of VTE in thrombophilia patients is also discussed. Available data are encouraging, but given the variability in thrombosis risk within natural anticoagulant deficiencies, evidence in patients with well-characterized thrombophilia would be useful.

Lupus anticoagulant testing during anticoagulation, including direct oral anticoagulants

Background

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are one laboratory criterion for classification of antiphospholipid syndrome, with presence of vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy/fetal morbidity being clinical criteria. The presence of LA is detected (or excluded) by laboratory testing, with the activated partial thromboplastin time and dilute Russell's viper venom time the most commonly used tests. Given the association of thrombosis with LA, it is no surprise that anticoagulants are used to treat or manage such patients.

Objectives

To review and discuss interferences from anticoagulants on LA testing, and strategies to mitigate these.

Methods

This narrative review assessed interference from commonly used anticoagulants, focusing on LA testing while on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including use of DOAC neutralizers.

Results

The classical anticoagulants comprise vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin, and heparins, predominantly unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). DOACs have emerged with favorable efficacy and safety. These comprise two classes: direct anti-thrombin (anti-IIa; dabigatran) or direct anti-Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) agents. All anticoagulants affect clotting assays, although there are differences in effects according to anticoagulant and assay. Nevertheless, because of such interferences, anticoagulants can lead to false-negative or false-positive LA findings. Several strategies can mitigate such interferences, including avoidance of testing while patients are on such anticoagulants, temporarily switching to an anticoagulant (i.e., LMWH) with less assay interference, testing for LA at nadir levels of anticoagulants, and/or use of anticoagulant neutralizers.

Conclusion

Whilst the best approach is to avoid LA testing on patients taking anticoagulants; if unavoidable, testing may be facilitated by various mitigating strategies.

Laboratory testing for activated protein C resistance: rivaroxaban induced interference and a comparative evaluation of andexanet alfa and DOAC Stop to neutralise interference

Background Investigation of hemostasis is problematic when patients are on anticoagulant therapy. Rivaroxaban especially causes substantial interference, extending many clot-based tests, thereby leading to false positive or negative events. In particular, rivaroxaban affects some assays for activated protein C resistance (APCR). Methods We assessed, in an international setting, cross laboratory (n = 31) testing using four samples to evaluate rivaroxaban induced interference in APCR testing, and whether this interference could be neutralised. The samples comprised: (A) pool of normal plasma (APCR-negative control); (B) this normal pool spiked with rivaroxaban (200 ng/mL) to create rivaroxaban-induced interference (potential 'false' positive APCR event sample); (C) the rivaroxaban sample subsequently treated with a commercial direct oral anticoagulant 'DOAC-neutraliser' (DOAC Stop), or (D) treated with andexanet alfa (200 μg/mL). Testing was performed blind to sample type. Results The rivaroxaban-spiked sample generated false positive APCR results for some, but unexpectedly not most APCR-tests. The sample treated with DOAC Stop evidenced a correction in the rivaroxaban-affected APCR assays, and did not otherwise adversely affect the rivaroxaban 'unaffected' APCR assays. The andexanet alfa-treated sample did not evidence correction of the false positive APCR, and instead unexpectedly exacerbated false positive APCR status with many tests. Conclusions DOAC Stop was able to neutralise any APCR interference induced by rivaroxaban. In contrast, andexanet alfa did not negate such interference, and instead unexpectedly created more false-positive APCR events.

Diagnostic Challenges on the Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulant

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three laboratory parameters (the others being antibodies to either cardiolipin or β2-glycoprotein I) which defines the rare but potentially devastating condition known as antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Testing for LA is a challenging task for the clinical laboratory because specific tests for its detection are not available. However, proper LA detection is paramount for patients’ management, as its persistent positivity in the presence of (previous or current) thrombotic events, candidate for long term anticoagulation. Guidelines for LA detection have been established and updated over the last two decades. Implementation of these guidelines across laboratories and participation to external quality assessment schemes are required to help standardize the diagnostic procedures and help clinicians for appropriate management of APS. This article aims to review the current state of the art and the challenges that clinical laboratories incur in the detection of LA.

Laboratory Approaches to Test the Function of Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder caused by the presence of aPLs (antiphospholipid antibodies, i.e., anti-β₂-glycoprotein I and anti-cardiolipin). Everyday practice in terms of laboratory diagnostics of APS includes determination of aPLs and well-known functional assays assessing for lupus anticoagulant (LA), in turn using various tests. According to recent guidelines, the recommended method for LA identification or exclusion is based on the Russell Viper Venom test and a sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time assay. Despite the fact that LA can be quantified in laboratory practice in this way, LA is still used as a binary parameter that is just one of the risk factors of thrombosis in APS. As of today, there are no other functional assays to routinely assess the risk of thrombosis in APS. It is well-known that APS patients display a wide range of clinical outcomes although they may express very similar laboratory findings. One way to solve this dilemma, could be if antibodies could be further delineated using more advanced functional tests. Therefore, we review the diagnostic approaches to test the function of aPLs. We further discuss how thrombin generation assays, and rotational thromboelastometry tests can be influenced by LA, and how experimental methods, such as flow cytometric platelet activation, surface plasmon resonance, or nano differential scanning fluorimetry can bring us closer to the puzzling interaction of aPLs with platelets as well as with their soluble protein ligand. These novel approaches may eventually enable better characterization of aPL, and also provide a better linkage to APS pathophysiology.

Is Lupus Anticoagulant a Significant Feature of COVID-19? A Critical Appraisal of the Literature

The term "lupus anticoagulant (LA)" identifies a form of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) causing prolongation of clotting tests in a phospholipid concentration-dependent manner. LA is one of the laboratory criteria identified in patients with antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS). The presence of LA in patients with APS represents a significant risk factor for both thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. There have been several reports of similarities between some of the pathophysiological features of COVID-19 and APS, in particular the most severe form, catastrophic APS. There have also been many reports identifying various aPLs, including LA, in COVID-19 patients. Accordingly, a very pertinent question arises: "Is LA a feature of COVID-19 pathology?" In this review, we critically appraise the literature to help answer this question. We conclude that LA positivity is a feature of COVID-19, at least in some patients, and potentially those who are the sickest or have the most severe infection. However, many publications have failed to appropriately consider the many confounders to LA identification, being assessed using clot-based assays such as the dilute Russell viper venom time, the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and the silica clotting time. First, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are placed on anticoagulant therapy, and those with prior histories of thrombosis would possibly present to hospital already on anticoagulant therapy. All anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists, heparin (both unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin), and direct oral anticoagulants affect these clot-based assays. Second, C-reactive protein (CRP) is highly elevated in COVID-19 patients, and also associated with severity. CRP can also lead to false-positive LA, particularly with the aPTT assay. Third, persistence of aPL positivity (including LA) is required to identify APS. Fourth, those at greatest risk of thrombosis due to aPL are those with highest titers or multiple positivity. Most publications either did not identify anticoagulation and/or CRP in their COVID-19 cohorts or did not seem to account for these as possible confounders for LA detection. Most publications did not assess for aPL persistence, and where persistence was checked, LA appeared to represent transient aPL. Finally, high titer aPL or multiple aPL positivity were in the minority of COVID-19 presentations. Thus, at least some of the reported LAs associated with COVID-19 are likely to be false positives, and the relationship between the detected aPL/LA and COVID-19-associated coagulopathy remains to be resolved using larger and better studies.

Impact of a commercially available DOAC absorbent on two integrated procedures for lupus anticoagulant detection

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA)-detection in anticoagulated patients is an unmet need, which becomes even more cogent with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) that may lead to false-positive results.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the effect of a commercially available DOAC absorbent on residual drug concentrations, and on integrated procedures for LA-detection.

METHODS

Blood from patients treated for atrial fibrillation with either dabigatran (n = 39), rivaroxaban (n = 55), apixaban (n = 47) or edoxaban (n = 47) were collected at peak and trough, and centralized for testing with two LA integrated procedures [i.e., the silica clotting time (SCT) and dilute Russel viper venom (dRVVT)] before and after DOAC absorbent exposure.

RESULTS

The commercially available DOAC absorbent investigated in this study proved effective in reducing the concentrations of all the investigated DOAC, although small residual drug was detected after absorption, especially in patients on edoxaban. Results mimicking LA were observed in patients on DOAC before absorbent exposure, especially for rivaroxaban when testing was performed with dRVVT (88% rate at peak and 20% at trough) and much less with SCT (12% at peak and 8% at trough). The correspondent rate of results mimicking LA in patients on rivaroxaban after exposure was reduced [dRVVT (peak 8%, trough 4%); SCT (peak and trough 8%)], but not abolished.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, in vitro DOAC absorbance by active charcoal compounds is a useful laboratory tool for LA-detection in patients on DOAC. Caution should however be exerted when used in daily practice.

A Diagnostic Solution for Lupus Anticoagulant Testing in Patients Taking Direct Oral FXa Inhibitors Using DOAC Filter

Background: Direct oral factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors interfere with lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays challenging antiphospholipid syndrome diagnosis in treated patients. We evaluated a new device, called DOAC Filter, and its usefulness in this setting. It is a single-use filtration cartridge in which FXa inhibitor compounds are trapped by non-covalent binding while plasma is filtered through a solid phase. Patient samples were analyzed before and after filtration: 38 rivaroxaban, 41 apixaban, and 68 none. Anticoagulant plasma concentrations were measured using specific anti-Xa assays and HPLC-MS/MS. LA testing was performed using dilute Russell Viper Venom Time (dRVVT) and Silica Clotting Time (SCT). Baseline median [min-max] concentrations were 64.8 [17.6; 311.4] for rivaroxaban and 92.1 ng/mL [37.1; 390.7] for apixaban (HPLC-MS/MS). They were significantly correlated with anti-Xa assay results (r = 0.98 and r = 0.94, respectively). dRVVT was positive in 92% rivaroxaban and 72% apixaban and SCT in 28 and 41% of samples, respectively. Post-filtration, median % of neutralization was 100% with rivaroxaban and apixaban concentrations of, respectively, <2 [<2-2.4] and <2 ng/mL [<2-9.6] using HPLC-MS/MS. No significant effect of DOAC Filter was observed on LA testing in controls (n = 31) and LA-positive (n = 37) non-anticoagulated samples. dRVVT and SCT remained positive in, respectively, 16 and 8% of rivaroxaban and 41 and 18% of apixaban samples. DOAC Filter would be an easy-to-use device allowing FXa inhibitor removal from plasma samples, limiting their interference with LA testing in treated patients.

Mixing studies for lupus anticoagulant: mostly yes, sometimes no

Lupus anticoagulants (LAs) represent one manifestation of the clinical condition called antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and are associated with many adverse clinical outcomes, but primarily with thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. LAs are identified by laboratory testing, principally using clot-based assays based on Russell viper venom time (RVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) test methods. All three of the most recent guidance documents for LA testing recommend using these tests, although they vary in regard to inclusion/exclusion of other test processes. Mixing studies form part of the process of LA identification/exclusion, since in vitro LAs act like coagulation inhibitors. Mixing studies are also supported by all three LA guidance documents, but recommendations vary in regard to relative importance and placement in the LA identification/exclusion algorithm. This Point article takes the position that mixing tests are usually indicated for appropriate identification/exclusion of LAs, but can occasionally be omitted.

2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

DOAC-Stop in lupus anticoagulant testing: Direct oral anticoagulant interference removed in most samples

BACKGROUND

The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is a convenient therapeutic option for patients at risk of thrombosis. DOACs interfere with clot-based testing for the identification of lupus anticoagulant antibodies (LACs) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), a common cause of acquired thrombotic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a commercially available reagent DOAC-Stop for the removal of DOAC interference encountered in LAC testing.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We collected a cohort of 73 test samples from patients on DOAC therapy identified at a large institutional coagulation laboratory from March to December 2019, along with samples from 40 LAC positive and negative control patients not on therapy. Samples were treated with DOAC-Stop and tested for anti-Xa activity and thrombin time for the removal of apixaban, rivaroxaban, argatroban, and dabigatran activity from patient samples. Treated and untreated samples were tested using the activated partial thromboplastin time, silica clotting time, and dilute Russell's viper venom time to evaluate the reliability and utility of DOAC-Stop.

RESULTS

DOAC-Stop markedly reduced DOAC interference from test samples (P < .05). DOAC-Stop had no effect on LAC testing in the absence of DOAC therapy, permitting the identification of all LAC positive and negative controls. DOAC-Stop removed false positives and false negatives resulting from DOAC interference and allows the identification of patients meeting criteria for the diagnosis of APS by LAC testing, as well as the detection of patients on rivaroxaban who are triple positive for APS.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Stop is an effective adjunct for the clinical laboratory faced with DOAC interference in LAC testing.

Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria if persistently present. Progress has been made on the standardization of tests as guidelines on LAC testing and immunological assays for aCL and aβ2GPI are published. However, LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Noncriteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. But, aDI and aPS/PT are not included in the current diagnostic criteria and testing in daily practice is not recommended as these antibodies have no added value in the diagnosis of APS. This review will focus on the technical aspects of the laboratory methods, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

Antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome is one of the more common acquired causes of hypercoagulability. Its major presentations are thrombotic (arterial, venous, or microvascular) and pregnancy morbidity (miscarriages, late intrauterine fetal demise, and severe pre-eclampsia). Classification criteria include 3 different antiphospholipid antibodies: lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin, and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I. Management includes both preventive strategies (low-dose aspirin, hydroxychloroquine) and long-term anticoagulation after thrombosis.

Comprehensive review of the impact of direct oral anticoagulants on thrombophilia diagnostic tests: Practical recommendations for the laboratory

There is a laboratory and clinical need to know the impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on diagnostic tests to avoid misinterpretation of results. Although the regulatory labelling documents provide some information about the influences of each DOAC on diagnostic tests, these are usually limited to some of the most common tests and no head to head comparison is available. In this paper, we report the impact of DOACs on several thrombophilia tests, including assessment of antithrombin, protein S and protein C activity assays, detection of activated protein C resistance and assays used for lupus anticoagulant. Results are compared and discussed with data obtained from literature. The final goal of this comprehensive review is to provide practical recommendations for laboratories to avoid misdiagnosis due to oral direct factor Xa (FXa) or IIa (FIIa) inhibitors. Overall, oral direct FXa (apixaban, betrixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) and FIIa (dabigatran) antagonists may affect clot-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests resulting in false-positive or false-negative results. An effect on FIIa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests is observed with dabigatran but not with anti-FXa DOACs and conversely for FXa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests. No impact was observed with antigenic/chromogenic methods for the assessment of protein S and C activity. In conclusion, interpretation of thrombophilia diagnostic tests results should be done with caution in patients on DOACs. The use of a device/chemical compound able to remove or antagonize the effect of DOACs or the development of new diagnostic tests insensitive to DOACs should be considered to minimize the risk of false results.

Unveiling the complex effects of direct oral anticoagulants on dilute Russell's viper venom time assays

INTRODUCTION

Dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) assays can be affected by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which may cause false-positive results. However, there are conflicting results indicating significant differences between different reagents and DOACs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of DOACs on dRVVT assays.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Samples were prepared by adding DOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) to pooled normal plasma in the concentration range 0 to 800 µg/L. Six integrated dRVVT reagents were used, all composed of a screen assay (low phospholipid content) and a confirm assay (high phospholipid content). The screen/confirm dRVVT results were expressed as normalized ratios. To further evaluate the observed differences between tests and DOACs, addition of synthetic phospholipids was used.

RESULTS

The dRVVT ratios increased dose dependently for all DOACs, with four of the six tests and the DOAC rivaroxaban having the greatest effect. With one test, the ratios were almost unaffected with increasing DOAC concentration, whereas another test revealed a negative dose dependency for all DOACs. Variable DOAC effects can be explained by different effects on dRVVT screen and confirm clotting time. Adding synthetic phospholipids to samples containing rivaroxaban resulted in greatly reduced screen clotting times and thereby lower calculated dRVVT ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great variability in the dRVVT test result with different DOACs. The dRVVT ratios are unaffected for some reagents and this can be explained by an equal dose-dependent effect on both screen and confirm assays. The phospholipid type and content of the different reagents may contribute to the observed differences.

Direct oral anticoagulant adsorption: Impact on lupus anticoagulant testing-Review of the literature and evaluation on spiked and patient samples

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) interfere with lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing. DOAC-Stop (D-S) represents a preanalytical strategy to cope with this issue.

OBJECTIVES

To assess D-S's ability to remove DOACs from plasma and overcome DOAC interference in LAC assays and to evaluate D-S's applicability in a representative patient cohort with routine LAC request.

METHODS

Apixaban (30-933 ng/mL), edoxaban (31-1060 ng/mL), rivaroxaban (35-1020 ng/mL), and dabigatran (20-360 ng/mL) were spiked to normal plasma. Aliquots were treated with D-S or untreated before DOAC and LAC testing. Patient samples containing DOAC (n = 43), vitamin K antagonists (n = 25), heparins (n = 21), or no anticoagulants (n = 63) were tested for LAC before and after D-S.

RESULTS

Spiking experiments revealed false-positive LAC from low concentrations of DOACs except for apixaban. Following D-S, DOAC levels were below lower limits of quantification, except for apixaban at the highest concentration, and no false-positive LAC was obtained. DOAC levels were below lower limits of quantification after D-S in 39/43 DOAC-containing patient samples. For 23/29 LAC-positive DOAC-containing samples, LAC tests became negative after D-S, whereas 3/6 samples remaining positive were from patients with (high probability for) antiphospholipid syndrome. In the non-DOAC-treated groups, LAC changed from positive to negative in 10 and vice versa in 2 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

D-S limits DOAC interference in LAC assays. DOAC concentration measurement should be performed in D-S treated samples because incomplete removal may occur. Applying D-S to vitamin K antagonist-containing, heparin-containing, or not-anticoagulated samples may lead to erroneous LAC results. Therefore, D-S should only be used in plasma from DOAC-treated patients.

Lupus anticoagulant detection in anticoagulated patients. Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

BACKGROUND

The laboratory detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in anticoagulated patients represents a challenge and there is no consensus on the types of assays/procedures to be adopted.

OBJECTIVES

This communication of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) aims to give guidance on the procedures to be adopted.

METHODS

Members of the ISTH-SSC on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies reviewed the literature to search for evidence on the most appropriate assays/procedures to be adopted.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants are able to interfere with the tests used for LA detection, giving rise to occasional false-positive or false-negative LA. Some commercial tests include in their composition heparin-neutralizers able to quench unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin up to 1.0 U/mL. LA tests are less affected by low molecular weight heparin, but caution is needed in the interpretation of results. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) may affect LA detection. Dilution of test plasma into pooled normal plasma is not a reliable solution as false-negative or false-positive LA may occur. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) affect LA detection. Hence, it is not recommended to attempt LA detection in those patients. The use of DOAC adsorbents is a promising solution and should be further investigated on LA-positive and LA-negative patient populations. Taipan/Ecarin tests may be a solution for VKAs and anti-FXa DOACs, but independent evidence on their value and standardized kits is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

LA detection during anticoagulation remains a challenge, especially for VKAs. DOAC removal by in vitro addition to plasma of appropriate absorbents is promising.

How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on the laboratory tests necessary for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). For the interpretation of the results of the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), understanding of all pitfalls and interferences is necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made on the standardization of aPL tests and current guidelines for detection of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) are useful tools. LAC measurement remains a complex procedure with many pitfalls and interference by anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show inter-assay differences. Measuring LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI allows making antibody profiles that help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients, but are not included in the current diagnostic criteria as no added value in the diagnosis of APS has been illustrated so far. The laboratory diagnosis of APS remains challenging. LAC, aCL, aβ2GPI IgG, and IgM should be performed to increase diagnostic efficacy, with an integrated interpretation of all results and an interpretative comment. A close interaction between clinical pathologists and clinicians is mandatory.

[Seronegative antiphospholipid syndrome: Myth or reality?]

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by thrombosis and/or obstetrical manifestations and the persistent presence, at least 12 weeks apart, of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as lupus anticoagulant (LA) and/or anticardiolipin antibodies (ACL) and/or anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI). The finding of patients with clinical profile highly suggestive of APS but who are negative for conventional biological criteria has led to the concept of seronegative APS. In the last few years, new antigen targets and methodological approaches have been employed to more clearly identify this syndrome in patients with thrombosis or obstetrical complications without conventional aPL. Although seronegative APS is still controversial, there is increasing recognition of the existence of this subgroup. However, clinical relevance of non conventional aPL need to be confirmed by efforts toward standardizing new biological tools and longitudinal studies involving large cohort of patients.

Reducing the effect of DOAC interference in laboratory testing for factor VIII and factor IX: A comparative study using DOAC Stop and andexanet alfa to neutralize rivaroxaban effects

INTRODUCTION

Investigation of factors (F) VIII and IX is common, with testing important for diagnosis or exclusion of haemophilia A or B, associated acquired conditions and factor inhibitors. Rivaroxaban, a common direct anti-Xa agent, causes significant interference in clotting assays, including substantial false reduction of factor levels.

AIM

To assess whether rivaroxaban-induced interference of FVIII and FIX testing could be neutralized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international, cross-laboratory exercise for FVIII (n = 84) and FIX (n = 74), using four samples: (A) pool of normal plasma; (B) pool spiked with rivaroxaban (200 ng/mL); (C) rivaroxaban sample subsequently treated with 'DOAC Stop' and; (D) rivaroxaban sample treated with andexanet alfa (200 μg/mL). Testing performed blind to sample type.

RESULTS

All laboratories reported normal FIX and 94% reported normal FVIII in the pool sample. Instead, 55% and 95%, respectively, reported abnormal FIX and FVIII levels for the rivaroxaban sample. DOAC Stop treatment evidenced a correction in most laboratories (100% reported normal FIX and 86% normal FVIII). Andexanet alfa provided intermediate results, with many laboratories still reporting abnormal results (59% for FVIII, 18% for FIX). We also identified reagent-specific issues.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, rivaroxaban caused false low values of FVIII and FIX. This might lead to increased testing to identify the cause of low factor levels and potentially lead to false identification of (mild) haemophilia A or B if unrecognized by clinicians/laboratories. DOAC Stop effectively neutralized the rivaroxaban effect, but andexanet alfa less so, with reagent-related effects evident, and thus, false low values sometimes persisted.

Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing

High-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) experience increased risk of thrombosis when treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy compared with warfarin. It is essential to establish the APS diagnosis to choose therapy and determine treatment duration. It requires testing for antiphospholipid antibodies, including lupus anticoagulant (LAC). In this viewpoint, we discuss the options for timing of LAC testing, which includes testing before starting anticoagulant treatment (DOAC or warfarin), after switching to heparin or after withdrawal of anticoagulant treatment. DOACs interfere with LAC testing and recommendations emerge stating not to conduct on-therapy LAC testing. All approaches are to some extent currently practised, but have limitations and the area is therefore seemingly a catch 22. We put forward that the anticoagulant effect of DOAC can be eliminated in the laboratory and therefore patients can be tested on-therapy. While it may not eliminate all cases of interference, it could aid the interpretation in these situations and this approach is attractive from the patient and clinician’s perspective. Nevertheless, to prevent misdiagnosis the diagnostic workup for APS requires collaboration between the clinician and the laboratory. We advocate for standardisation in laboratory and clinical practice when diagnosing APS.

The effect of unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, and danaparoid on lupus anticoagulant testing: Can activated carbon eliminate false-positive results?

BACKGROUND

Heparins and heparinoids interfere with functional clotting assays used for lupus anticoagulant (LAC) detection. However, current guidelines for LAC testing do not provide clear guidance on this matter.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess to effect of unfractionated heparin (UFH), enoxaparin, and danaparoid on LAC assays over broad anti-Xa activity ranges and to evaluate whether activated carbon (AC) is able to neutralize these effects.

METHODS

UFH (0.1-3.0 IU/mL), enoxaparin (0.2-2.9 IU/mL), and danaparoid (0.6-2.2 IU/mL) were spiked to normal pooled plasma. AC was added at multiple activity levels. Anti-Xa assays and LAC tests were performed on all samples using Stago analyzers and reagents.

RESULTS

Abnormal activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) screening and mixing tests were obtained at the lowest levels for all compounds. Abnormal APTT confirmation tests were seen from 2.5 and 1.9 anti-Xa IU/mL for enoxaparin and danaparoid, respectively. Abnormal dilute Russell's viper venom test (dRVVT) screening tests were obtained from 1.6, 1.4, and 1.1 anti-Xa IU/mL for UFH, enoxaparin, and danaparoid, respectively. Mixing tests were abnormal from 2.5 and 1.3 anti-Xa IU/mL for enoxaparin and danaparoid, respectively. Abnormal dRVVT confirmation results were seen for danaparoid only from 1.9 anti-Xa IU/mL. AC was unable to neutralize anti-Xa activity in plasma and overcome the effect of the tested anticoagulants on LAC assays but may cause prolongation of APTT clotting times.

CONCLUSIONS

UFH, enoxaparin, and danaparoid clearly affected LA tests; however, false-positive LAC conclusions were obtained at supratherapeutic enoxaparin and danaparoid levels only. AC may prolong APTT screen clotting times, requiring 3-step testing to avoid potential misdiagnosis of LAC.

The Russell viper venom time (RVVT) test for investigation of lupus anticoagulant (LA)

Lupus anticoagulants (LAs) are a laboratory representation of the clinical syndrome of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and can also arise in other pathological states. Laboratory testing for LA is complex and three separate recent guidelines have been published. One test, the Russell viper venom time (RVVT), is the mandated laboratory test for inclusion in LA identification/exclusion in all three guidance documents. This is because the the RVVT is recognized to have great sensitivity for LA, with this generally recognized to be greater than that of most other LA screening assays. However, the RVVT is also very sensitive to the presence of many anticoagulant drugs, which diminishes its specificity for LA. Various strategies can be used to improve LA specificity and reduce anticoagulant assay interference.

Lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in patients receiving direct oral FXa inhibitors at trough levels: A real-life study

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (xabans) induce false positive results for lupus anticoagulant (LA) diagnosis. Consequently, it is suggested not to perform LA testing in xabans patients although it may be useful in selected patients. In this monocentric study, we evaluated xabans impact at trough levels (ie, just before the next intake) on LA diagnosis in treated patients using dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) and two LA sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).

METHODS

Sixty patients receiving rivaroxaban (30) or apixaban (30) were included. Plasma concentrations were measured using specific anti-Xa assays. LA testing was performed using one dRVVT (LAC-Screening^® /Confirm^® ; Siemens) and two LA sensitive aPTT-based assays (Hemosil^® Silica Clotting Time (SCT) Screen/Confirm; Werfen and Dade^® Actin^® Factor Sensitivity FSL/FS (Actin F); Siemens).

RESULTS

Median [min-max] concentrations were 23 [<18-68] for rivaroxaban and 42 ng/mL [19-99] for apixaban. dRVVT was positive in 93% of rivaroxaban and 40% of apixaban samples. SCT was positive in 40 and 30% and Actin F in 17 and 20% of samples respectively. Xabans affected more significantly dRVVT than aPTT-based assays (P < .001) with less false positive results with apixaban than with rivaroxaban samples irrespective of the assay used.

CONCLUSION

lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in rivaroxaban and apixaban samples drawn at trough levels remains questionable whenever positive results are obtained. If LA testing in apixaban samples might be useful to rule-out LA using dRVVT and/or aPTT-based assays, the wide majority of rivaroxaban samples would give false positive results.