A 9-year retrospective assessment of laboratory testing for activated protein C resistance: evolution of a novel approach to thrombophilia investigations

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.

Laboratory Testing for Activated Protein C Resistance (APCR): An Update

Activated protein C resistance (APCR) reflects a hemostatic state defined by a reduced ability of activated protein C (APC) to affect an anticoagulant response. This state of hemostatic imbalance is characterized by a heightened risk of venous thromboembolism. Protein C is an endogenous anticoagulant that is produced by the hepatocytes and undergoes proteolysis-mediated activation to APC. APC in turn degrades activated Factors V and VIII. APCR describes a state of resistance by activated Factors V and VIII to APC-mediated cleavage of these factors, thereby promoting amplified thrombin production and a potentially procoagulant state. This resistance of APC may be inherited or acquired. Mutations in Factor V are responsible for the most frequent form hereditary APCR. The predominant mutation, a G1691A missense mutation at Arginine 506, the so-called Factor V Leiden [FVL], causes a deletion of an APC-targeted cleavage site in Factor Va, thereby rendering it resistant to inactivation by APC. There are a variety of laboratory assays for APCR, but this chapter focuses on a procedure using a commercially available clotting assay that utilizes a snake venom and ACL TOP analyzers.

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.

Danger of false negative (exclusion) or false positive (diagnosis) for ‘congenital thrombophilia’ in the age of anticoagulants

Background

Most guidelines and experts recommend against performance of thrombophilia testing in general, and specifically against testing patients on pharmacological anticoagulants, due to substantially increased risk of false positive identification. For example, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy affects protein C (PC) and protein S (PS), as well as some clotting assays (e.g. as used to investigate activated PC resistance [APCR]). Although heparin may also affect clotting assays, most commercial methods contain neutralisers to make them ‘insensitive’ to therapeutic levels. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) also affect a wide variety of thrombophilia assays, although most reported data has employed artificial in vitro spiked samples.

Methods

In the current report, data from our facility for the past 2.5 years has been assessed for all ‘congenital thrombophilia’ related tests, as evaluated against patient anticoagulant status. We processed 10,571 ‘thrombophilia’ related test requests, including antithrombin (AT; n=3470), PC (n=3569), PS (n=3585), APCR (n=2359), factor V Leiden (FVL; n=2659), and prothrombin gene mutation (PGM; n=2103).

Results

As expected, VKA therapy affected PC and PS, and despite manufacturer claims, also APCR. Most assays, as suggested by manufacturers, were largely resistant to heparin therapy. DOACs’ use was associated with falsely low APCR ratios (i.e. FVL-like effect) and somewhat unexpectedly, anti-Xa agents apixaban and rivaroxaban were also associated with lower AT and higher PS values.

Conclusions

It is concluded that ex-vivo data appears to confirm the potential for both false positive and false negative ‘thrombophilia’ events in patients on anticoagulant (including DOAC) treatment.

Post-analytical Issues in Hemostasis and Thrombosis Testing

Analytical concerns within hemostasis and thrombosis testing are continuously decreasing. This is essentially attributable to modern instrumentation, improvements in test performance and reliability, as well as the application of appropriate internal quality control and external quality assurance measures. Pre-analytical issues are also being dealt with in some newer instrumentation, which are able to detect hemolysis, icteria and lipemia, and, in some cases, other issues related to sample collection such as tube under-filling. Post-analytical issues are generally related to appropriate reporting and interpretation of test results, and these are the focus of the current overview, which provides a brief description of these events, as well as guidance for their prevention or minimization. In particular, we propose several strategies for improved post-analytical reporting of hemostasis assays and advise that this may provide the final opportunity to prevent serious clinical errors in diagnosis.

Laboratory assessment of Activated Protein C Resistance/Factor V-Leiden and performance characteristics of a new quantitative assay

Activated Protein C Resistance is mainly associated to a factor V mutation (RQ506), which induces a deficient inactivation of activated factor V by activated protein C, and is associated to an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis in affected individuals, caused by the prolonged activated factor V survival. Its prevalence is mainly in Caucasians (about 5%), and this mutation is absent in Africans and Asians. Presence of Factor V-Leiden is usually evidenced with clotting methods, using a two-step APTT assay performed without or with APC: prolongation of blood coagulation time is decreased if this factor is present. The R506Q Factor V-Leiden mutation is now usually characterized using molecular biology, and this technique tends to become the first intention assay for characterization of patients. Both techniques are qualitative, and allow classifying tested individuals as heterozygotes or homozygotes for the mutation, when present. A new quantitative assay for Factor V-Leiden, using a one-step clotting method, has been developed, and designed with highly purified human coagulation proteins. Clotting is triggered with human Factor Xa, in presence of calcium and phospholipids (mixture which favours APC action over clotting process). Diluted tested plasma, is supplemented with a clotting mixture containing human fibrinogen, prothrombin, and protein S at a constant concentration. APC is added, and clotting is initiated with calcium. Calibration is performed with a pool of plasmas from patients carrying the R506Q Factor V mutation, and its mixtures with normal plasma. Homozygous patients have clotting times of about <40sec; heterozygous patients have clotting times of about 40-60sec and normal individuals yield clotting times >70sec. Factor V-Leiden concentration is usually >75% in homozygous patients, 30-60% in heterozygous patients and below 5% in normal. The assay is insensitive to clotting factor deficiencies (II, VII, VIII: C, IX, X), dicoumarol or heparin therapies, and has no interference with lupus anticoagulant (LA). This new assay for Factor V-Leiden can be easily used in any coagulation laboratory, is performed as a single test, and is quantitative. This assay has a high robustness, is accurate and presents a good intra- (<3%) and inter-assay (<5%) variability. It contributes solving most of the laboratory issues faced when testing factor V-Leiden. Quantitation of Factor V-L could contribute to a better assessment of thrombotic risk in affected patients, as this complication is first associated to and caused by the presence of a defined amount of FVa.

Diagnostic Testing Approaches for Activated Protein C Resistance and Factor V Leiden: A Comparison of Institutional and National Provider Practices

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the economic impact of testing for activated protein C resistance (APC-R) due to factor V Leiden (FVL) mutation with APC-R with reflexive FVL genotyping (algorithmic approach) or genotyping alone.

METHODS

OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) data were used to assess testing approaches. Insurance claims for APC-R and FVL in 2013 were compared with the Mayo Clinic database. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services diagnostic fee schedules were used to assign costs.

RESULTS

Of 19.3 million OLDW-covered individuals, 74,242 (0.385%) received 75,608 tests: APC-R, 2,265 (2.9%); FVL genotyping, 70,619 (90.1%); and both APC-R and FVL, 2,724 (7.0%). In total, 1,317 tests were performed at Mayo Clinic: APC-R with reflex FVL (1,256; 95.4%) and FVL alone (61; 4.6%). Costs per evaluated individual and per total population (person/year) in OLDW and algorithmic approach were $83.77 vs $36.38 and $0.32 vs $0.14, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-optimized algorithmic approach reduces health care costs.

Laboratory Testing for Activated Protein C Resistance (APCR)

Activated protein C resistance (APCR) describes a hemostatic disorder characterized by a poor anticoagulant response to activated protein C (APC). This results in an increased risk of venous thrombosis, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Protein C is a natural anticoagulant that is synthesized in the liver and is activated to APC via proteolysis. APC then degrades Factors Va and VIIIa. APCR describes the reduced inability of APC to cleave Factors Va and VIIIa, which therefore promotes increased thrombin generation and potentially leads to a prothrombotic state. APCR may be hereditary or acquired. The most common hereditary defect is due to mutations in Factor V, predominantly the Factor V Leiden [FVL] mutation-a G1691A missense mutation at Arginine 506 that results in its replacement by a glutamine [R506Q] and the abolition of an APC inactivation cleavage site in Factor Va. Laboratory testing for APCR may be undertaken by a variety of methods, but this chapter describes an automated procedure using a commercial Russell Viper Venom-based clotting assay, and using CS-5100 and STA-R analyzers.

Laboratory reporting of hemostasis assays: the final post-analytical opportunity to reduce errors of clinical diagnosis in hemostasis?

The advent of modern instrumentation, with associated improvements in test performance and reliability, together with appropriate internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assurance (EQA) measures, has led to substantial reductions in analytical errors within hemostasis laboratories. Unfortunately, the reporting of incorrect or inappropriate test results still occurs, perhaps even as frequently as in the past. Many of these cases arise due to a variety of events largely outside the control of the laboratories performing the tests. These events are primarily preanalytical, related to sample collection and processing, but can also include post-analytical events related to the reporting and interpretation of test results. The current report provides an overview of these events, as well as guidance for prevention or minimization. In particular, we propose several strategies for the post-analytical reporting of hemostasis assays, and how this may provide the final opportunity to prevent serious clinical errors in diagnosis. This report should be of interest to both the laboratory scientists working in hemostasis and clinicians that request and attempt to interpret the test results. Laboratory scientists are ultimately responsible for these test results, and there is a duty to provide both accurate and precise results to enable clinicians to manage patients appropriately and to avoid the need to recollect and retest. Also, clinicians will not be in a position to best diagnose and manage their patient unless they gain an appreciation of these issues.

The diagnostic dilemma: dual presentations of clinical mucosal bleeding and venous thrombosis associated with the presence of thrombophilia markers and mild reduction in von Willebrand factor

A prothrombotic and hemorrhagic state can separately manifest in one patient and can potentially cause several diagnostic problems. We report an intriguing case as an example of a potential hemostasis-based diagnostic dilemma. A 29-year-old female patient presented with a personal history of menorrhagia and other mucosal bleeding and renal ovarian thrombosis. Previous investigations had uncovered several diagnostic anomalies, including von Willebrand disease (VWD), factor V Leiden (FVL), antiphospholipid syndrome, and thrombocytopaenia. Previous therapy in this patient included heparin and warfarin for the thrombosis and desmopressin acetate (DDAVP) and antifibrinolytic therapy for surgical management. Subsequent laboratory testing with fresh samples consistently confirmed an equivocal (borderline normal/abnormal) level of von Willebrand factor (VWF) and FVL with activated protein C resistance (APCR). A patient sample, differentially labeled according to the tests being performed, was later distributed for blind testing to participants within several modules of the RCPA Quality Assurance Program (QAP). Most participants reported a low level of VWF consistent with possible mild Type 1 VWD, and most (but not all) reported a positive finding for APCR. All participants correctly reported the sample as heterozygous for the FVL mutation, negative for the Prothrombin gene mutation G20210A, and heterozygous for the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) mutation C677T. Interestingly, a significant number of laboratories performing Protein S testing using clot-based procedures also identified a false Protein S deficiency. In conclusion, this exercise showed how, either depending on the clinical review and specific laboratory investigation and tests performed, a pro-bleeding diagnosis (of either VWD or thrombocytopenia) or pro-thrombophilia risk (Antiphospholipid Syndrome or FVL/APCR or false Protein S deficiency) could potentially and differentially arise in the one patient.

A 2-year retrospective analysis of laboratory testing for activated protein C resistance with a factor V-corrected activated partial thromboplastin time-based method

The factor V-corrected activated protein C resistance assay is the test of choice to screen for the factor V Leiden mutation. During the past 2 years, local test results with the frequently used Coatest APCR kit were evaluated and compared with the results of DNA analysis, the 'gold standard'. Samples of 278 patients were analysed by both techniques. We were unable to confirm that factor V Leiden carriers can clearly be delineated from normal individuals with the Coatest APCR test. A ratio of 2.0 as the cut-off provides 99.0% sensitivity and 95.4% specificity.To evaluate the lupus anticoagulant interference, we retrospectively analysed 16 lupus anticoagulant-positive patients. In this study, two (12.5%) showed a false-positive activated protein C resistance result. Six out of 16 (37.5%) lupus anticoagulant-positive patients were also carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation. Four out of eight (50%) false-positive activated protein C resistance results presented with an abnormal baseline clotting time. In order to prevent reporting false-positive results, a maximum baseline clotting time (65.8 s) was calculated. A new scheme for interpreting activated protein C resistance ratios was proposed.

Activated protein C resistance: The influence of ABO-blood group, gender and age

We have evaluated the potential influence of ABO-blood group, gender and age, on laboratory procedures used for detection of Activated Protein C Resistance (APCR), using over 300 normal donor samples and two distinct laboratory test procedures, one based on an Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) and the other on a Russell Viper Venom Time (RVVT). We observed a statistically significant influence of ABO-blood group on APTT test times, both in the presence and absence of Activated Protein C (APC), which was no longer evident when using assay ratios. This ABO effect was not observed using the RVVT-based assay procedure. We also observed a gender effect on the APTT-based procedure, such that females (compared to males) provided shorter APTT test times (both with and without APC). This effect was still evident when using APTT assay ratios, but was again not observed using the RVVT-based procedure. We also observed an age related increase in APTT ratios. Interestingly, some previous studies have reported some specific gender and age related effects on APTT-based testing, but reports using RVVT-based testing are lacking, as are ABO related studies. Such findings should be considered as potential variables when associating specific laboratory based findings of APCR to clinical thrombophilia conditions.

Laboratory Identification of Familial Thrombophilia: Do the Pitfalls Exceed the Benefits? A Reassessment of ABO-Blood Group, Gender,Age, and other Laboratory Parameters on the Potential Influence on a Diagnosis of Protein C, Protein S, and Antithromb

Laboratory testing for familial thrombophilia defines a large proportion of the modern hemostasis laboratory workload. As part of an ongoing assessment of our activities, we have re-evaluated our laboratory procedures for antithrombin (AT), Protein C (PC), and Protein S (PS), inclusive of normal reference ranges (NRR), the potential influence of ABO-blood group, gender and age, as well as other laboratory parameters, in order to help assess the effectiveness of testing as an aid to clinical diagnosis. We did not observe a significant influence of ABO-blood group on AT, PC, or PS. However, there were gender-related effects for PS (lower in females) and AT (higher in females), but not for PC. There were also age-related effects for AT, PC, and PS. Data is compared with literature findings. We also audited the positive detection rate for PC and/or PS deficiencies. In a 6-month period of testing, we identified that 18.9% of tested samples yielded low or near-low PC and/or PS levels. However, 33.3% of such samples were potentially derived from patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (ie, potential false positives). Additional pre-analytical variables, intra-assay, inter-assay, and inter-laboratory variability also contribute to the possibility of false positive detection. Thus, whilst NRR can be developed for test parameters, the likelihood of a false-positive test result can still be shown to exceed the likelihood of a true positive result, and this casts a shadow over the clinical value of such testing in some cases. In conclusion, laboratory testing for these markers of familial thrombophilia may or may not assist in the clinical diagnosis of this condition and clinical specialists should be made aware of laboratory test limitations, and consult with laboratories prior to making a definitive diagnosis of AT, PC, or PS deficiency.