Assessment of current diagnostic practice and efficacy in testing for von Willebrand's disorder: results from the second Australasian multi-laboratory survey

The Role of the von Willebrand Factor Collagen-Binding Assay (VWF:CB) in the Diagnosis and Treatment of von Willebrand Disease (VWD) and Way Beyond: A Comprehensive 36-Year History

The von Willebrand factor (VWF) collagen binding (VWF:CB) assay was first reported for use in von Willebrand diagnostics in 1986, by Brown and Bosak. Since then, the VWF:CB has continued to be used to help diagnose von Willebrand disease (VWD) (correctly) and also to help assign the correct subtype, as well as to assist in the monitoring of VWD therapy, especially desmopressin (DDAVP). However, it is important to recognize that the specific value of any VWF:CB is predicated on the use of an optimized VWF:CB, and that not all VWF:CB assays are so optimized. There are some good commercial assays available, but there are also some "not-so-good" commercial assays available, and these may continue to give the VWF:CB "a bad reputation." In addition to VWD diagnosis and management, the VWF:CB found purpose in a variety of other applications, from assessing ADAMTS13 activity, to investigation into acquired von Willebrand syndrome (especially as associated with use of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac assist devices), to assessment of VWF activity in disease states in where an excess of high-molecular-weight VWF may accumulate, and lead to increased (micro)thrombosis risk (e.g., coronavirus disease 2019, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura). The VWF:CB turns 37 in 2023. This review is a celebration of the utility of the VWF:CB over this nearly 40-year history.

Evaluating Performance of Contemporary and Historical von Willebrand Factor (VWF) Assays in the Laboratory Identification of von Willebrand Disease (VWD): The Australasian Experience

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common bleeding disorder that arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Appropriate diagnosis of VWD, including differential identification of qualitative (types 2A, 2B, 2M, 2N VWD) versus quantitative (types 1 and 3 VWD) defects remains problematic but has important management implications, given differential therapy. Complete assessment for VWD in a patient with a bleeding history requires comprehensive test panels, including VWF activity and antigen. We describe the Australasian experience, using data from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) related to VWF testing in their VWD test module. The RCPAQAP has been providing samples for VWF testing since 1998, representing 25 years of proficiency testing related to VWD diagnosis. A total of 109 samples have been dispatched to participants over these years, with current assessment involving dispatches of two samples (=4 samples) per year. Samples have represented all types of VWD, as well as normal or other samples, including acquired von Willebrand syndrome and plasma VWF concentrates as used in VWD therapy. Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios show different utility in VWD and type identification. In the past 9 years of data capture, a total of 166 errors were identified from a total of 1,839 interpretations, representing a base error rate of 9.0%. Identification errors were highest for type 2 VWD samples (15.3%), intermediate for type 1 VWD samples (7.5%), and lowest for normal samples (2.4%). Errors can be linked to assay limitations, including assay variability and low-level VWF detection limits, as well as laboratory issues (including test result misinterpretation, which accounts for approximately 40% of all errors for type 2 VWD). For test-associated errors, VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbM were associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was up to 10x higher than that using VWF:CB. As a test group, chemiluminescence-based procedures were associated with lowest inter-laboratory variability, best low-level VWF detection (down to <1 U/dL), and least errors overall. These findings inform on reasons behind high rates of errors associated with VWD diagnosis, with some assays and methodologies performing substantially better than others.

Evaluating errors in the laboratory identification of von Willebrand disease using contemporary von Willebrand factor assays

von Willebrand disease (VWD) arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Assessment requires test panels, including VWF activity and antigen. Appropriate diagnosis including differential identification of qualitative versus quantitative defects remains problematic but has important management implications. Data using a large set (n=27) of varied plasma samples comprising both quantitative VWF deficiency ('Type 1 and 3') vs qualitative defects ('Type 2') tested in a cross-laboratory setting have been evaluated to assess contemporary VWF assays for utility to differentially identify sample types. Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios showed different utility in VWD and type identification. Identification errors were linked to assay limitations, including variability, and laboratory issues (e.g., test result misinterpretation). Quantitative deficient (type 1) samples were misinterpreted as qualitative defects (type 2) on 35/467 occasions (7.5% error rate); 11.4% of these errors were due to laboratories misinterpreting their own data, which was instead consistent with quantitative deficiencies. Conversely, qualitative defects were misinterpreted as quantitative deficiencies at a higher error rate (14.3%), but this was more often due to laboratories misinterpreting their data (40% of errors). For test-associated errors, VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbM were associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was many-fold higher than that using VWF:CB. Chemiluminescence ('CLIA') procedures were associated with lowest inter-laboratory variability and errors overall. These findings in part explain the high rate of errors associated with VWD diagnosis. VWF:GPIbM showed a surprisingly high rate of test associated errors, whilst CLIA procedures performed best overall.

A novel flow cytometry single tube bead assay for quantitation of von Willebrand factor antigen and collagen-binding

Deficiency of or defects in the plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF) lead to bleeding and von Willebrand disease (VWD), which may be congenital or acquired. VWD is considered the most common inherited bleeding disorder and laboratory testing for VWF level and activity is critical for appropriate diagnosis and management. We have designed and established a novel Flow Cytometry (FC) based method for measuring VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and collagen binding (VWF:CB), together in the same tube and at the same time. The results of the novel FC method have been compared against existing reference methods using a range of normal and pathological material. Methods correlated well (VWF:Ag, r=0.866; VWF:CB, r=0.888) and generally permitted similar discrimination of quantitative versus qualitative VWD types (e.g. type 1 vs type 2A or 2B VWD). The novel procedure is expected to permit future streamlined performance of VWD screening, either using stand-alone FC systems or potentially incorporated into FC-capable automated blood cell and particle counters to allow for improved, automated and faster identification or exclusion of VWD.

Von Willebrand disease and other bleeding disorders in women: consensus on diagnosis and management from an international expert panel

Reproductive tract bleeding in women is a naturally occurring event during menstruation and childbirth. In women with menorrhagia, however, congenital bleeding disorders historically have been underdiagnosed. This consensus is intended to allow physicians to better recognize bleeding disorders as a cause of menorrhagia and consequently offer effective disease-specific therapies.

Correlation between von Willebrand factor antigen, von Willebrand factor ristocetin cofactor activity and factor VIII activity in plasma

BACKGROUND

The laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand Factor (VWF) deficiencies includes qualitative and quantitative measurements of VWF and clotting factor VIII (FVIII). Since the FVIII activity is frequently normal in patients with mild type 1 or 2 von Willebrand disease (VWD), there is controversy whether FVIII testing should accompany VWF Antigen (VWF:Ag) assay.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between VWF:Ag, VWF ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo) and FVIII in 213 consecutive patients undergoing screening for VWD.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were identified with VWF:Ag levels lower than the diagnostic threshold (54 IU/dl). A significant correlation was observed between VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo (r = 0.892; p < 0.001), VWF:Ag and FVIII (r = 0.834; p < 0.001), VWF:RCo and FVIII (r = 0.758; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the VWF:Ag assay revealed an area under the curve of 0.978 and 0.957 for detecting life-threatening values of FVIII (<30 IU/dl) and VWF:RCo (<40 IU/dl), respectively. The negative and positive predictive values at the VWF:Ag threshold value of 54 IU/dl were 100% and 33% for detecting life-threatening FVIII deficiencies, 94% and 80% for identifying abnormal values of VWF:RCo.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the excellent correlation between VWF:Ag and FVIII and to the diagnostic efficiency of VWF:Ag for identifying abnormal FVIII levels in patients with VWF deficiency, routine measurement of FVIII may not be necessary in the initial screening of patients with suspected VWD. However, the limited negative predictive value of VWF:Ag for identifying type 2 VWD does not allow to eliminate VWF:RCo or VWF:FVIIIB assays from the diagnostic workout.

von Willebrand factor ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo) assay: implementation on an automated coagulometer (ACL)

BACKGROUND

VWF:RCo assay is the standard and widely used laboratory test for von Willebrand disease (VWD) diagnosis. It is hampered by high intra- and inter-assay imprecision and is time consuming. Automation may improve the assay performance and allow its routine application.

OBJECTIVE

Automation of VWF:RCo on the ACL 7000 coagulometer (Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, Italy) and its evaluation in VWD diagnosis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Method performance determination: precision, detection limit (DL), interferences, dose-response curve. Method comparison: analysis of 105 plasma samples from normal subjects (50), VWD type 1 (24), VWD type 2 (24) and VWD type 3 (7) with ACL VWF:RCo and comparison with the reference aggregometric (AGM) method.

RESULTS

ACL VWF:RCo: CVs around 10% vs. 19% of AGM method; DL: 0.08 U mL(-1); potential interferences from bilirubin, triglycerides and hemoglobin, avoided by suitable plasma dilution; high correlation with AGM VWF:RCo (Deming regression Y =-0.0277 + 1.0519X) either in normal or VWD plasmas. In VWD types 1 and 2, the VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag ratios are >0.6 or <0.6, respectively, when calculated with both AGM and ACL VWF:RCo values.

CONCLUSIONS

The automated VWF:RCo on the ACL 7000 coagulometer shows precision improvement and high correlation with the reference AGM method. The test allows the diagnosis of both quantitative (VWD types 1 and 3) and qualitative (VWD type 2) forms of the disease. These results and the assay feasibility make it a suitable and reliable test for the routine diagnosis of VWD.

Laboratory Diagnosis of von Willebrand Disorder: Use of Multiple Functional Assays Reduces Diagnostic Error Rates

Regular multilaboratory surveys of laboratories primarily in Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia have been conducted over the past 8 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the diagnosis of von Willebrand disorder (VWD). We have reassessed the findings of these surveys with a particular emphasis on the diagnostic errors and error rates associated with particular tests or test panel limitations. The 37 plasma samples dispatched to survey participants include 9 normal samples, 4 type 1 VWD samples, 8 type 2 VWD samples (2A x 3, 2B x 3, 2M x 1, and 2N x 1), and 4 type 3 VWD samples. In addition to providing numerical test results, participant laboratories (average, n = 35) were asked to provide diagnostic interpretations of their test results regarding whether VWD was evident and, if so, the probable subtype. Although laboratories usually provided correct interpretative responses, diagnostic errors occurred in a substantial number of cases. On average, type 1 VWD plasma was misidentified as type 2 VWD plasma in 11% of cases, and laboratories that performed the ristocetin cofactor assay for von Willebrand factor (VWF:RCo) without performing the collagen-binding activity assay for VWF (VWF:CB) were 6 times more likely to make such an error than those that did perform the VWF:CB. Similarly, type 2 VWD plasma samples were misidentified as type 1 or type 3 VWD in an average of 20% of cases, and laboratories that performed the VWF:RCo without the VWF:CB were 3 times more likely to make such an error than those that performed the VWF:CB. Finally, normal plasma was misidentified as VWD plasma in an average of 5% of cases, and laboratories that performed the VWF:RCo without the VWF:CB were 10 times more likely to make such an error than those that performed the VWF:CB. We conclude that laboratories are generally proficient in their testing for VWD and that diagnostic error rates are substantially reduced when test panels are more comprehensive and include the VWF:CB.

Results of a Survey of Hospital Coagulation Laboratories in the United States, 2001

Context.—Coagulation and bleeding problems are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, and inappropriate testing practices may lead to bleeding or thrombotic complications.

Objective.—To evaluate practices reported by hospital coagulation laboratories in the United States and to determine if the number of beds in a hospital was associated with different practices.

Design.—From a sampling frame of institutions listed in the 1999 directory of the American Hospital Association, stratified into hospitals with 200 or more beds (“large hospitals”) and those with fewer than 200 beds (“small hospitals”), we randomly selected 425 large hospitals (sampling rate, 25.6%) and 375 small hospitals (sampling rate, 8.8%) and sent a survey to them between June and October 2001. Of these, 321 large hospitals (75.5%) and 311 small hospitals (82.9%) responded.

Results.—An estimated 97.1% of respondents reported performing some coagulation laboratory tests. Of these, 71.6% reported using 3.2% sodium citrate as the specimen anticoagulant to determine prothrombin time (81.3% of large vs 67.7% of small hospitals, P &lt; .001). Of the same respondents, 45.3% reported selecting thromboplastins insensitive to heparin in the therapeutic range when measuring prothrombin time (59.4% of large vs 39.8% of small hospitals, P &lt; .001), and 58.8% reported having a therapeutic range for heparin (72.9% of large vs 53.2% of small hospitals, P &lt; .001). An estimated 96.3% of respondents assayed specimens for activated partial thromboplastin time within 4 hours after phlebotomy, and 89.4% of respondents centrifuged specimens within 1 hour of collection. An estimated 12.1% reported monitoring low-molecular-weight heparin therapy, and to do so, 79% used an assay for activated partial thromboplastin time (58% of large vs 96% of small hospitals, P = .001), whereas 38% used an antifactor Xa assay (65% of large vs 18% of small hospitals, P = .001).

Conclusions.—Substantial variability in certain laboratory practices was evident. Where significant differences existed between the hospital groups, usually large hospitals adhered to accepted practice guidelines to a greater extent. Some reported practices are not consistent with current recommendations, showing a need to understand the reasons for noncompliance so that better adherence to accepted standards of laboratory practice can be promoted.

Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand's disorder: quality and diagnostic improvements driven by peer review in a multilaboratory test process

Regular multilaboratory surveys of laboratories derived primarily from Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia have been conducted over the past 7 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the diagnosis of von Willebrand's disorder (VWD) and to assess changes to test practice. Participating laboratories (currently 45) are asked to perform their usual panel of tests for VWD, and then to self-interpret test results as to the likelihood (or not) of VWD, as well as to the potential subtype identified. Samples provided in the past two survey distributions (both conducted in 2003) were as follows. Survey part A/distribution 1: Normal donor plasma, plasma with borderline normal/reduced levels of VWF (x2) and plasma from an individual with type 2 A VWD. Survey part B/distribution 2 (family VWD study): Plasma from a father, mother and son with borderline normal/reduced von Willebrand factor (VWF), and a daughter with type 3 VWD. In line with previously published survey results, the interassay and within method coefficients of variation (CV) were similar for all assays (around 15-25%), although tending to be slightly higher for VWF:RCo and VWF:CB than VWF:Ag and FVIII:C. Most laboratories reported test values consistent with expected findings, and made correct interpretations or predictions regarding the nature of the samples, although discrepant assay results or interpretations are still seen in approximately 5-10% of responses (typically from laboratories using a more limited test panel or not performing the VWF:CB). Overall, problems with the non-identification of functional VWF discordance in type 2 VWD, the misidentification of functional VWF discordance in type 1 VWD, and difficulties in discriminating types 1 and 3 VWD appear to predominate. In comparison with previous surveys, performance of electro-immuno diffusion (EID) (or Laurel gel) procedures has now ceased, and a reduction in VWF:RCo and VWF:Multimer testing and an increase in latex immunoassay (LIA) testing is sustained. We conclude that laboratories are generally proficient in tests for VWD, and that diagnostic error rates are reduced when test panels are more comprehensive and include the VWF:CB.

Pre-operative hemostatic assessment and management

Excessive surgical bleeding can be predicted and then prevented in most patients with a recognised hereditary bleeding tendency or in those on anti-thrombotic therapy. However the clinical consultation of an individual patient can be challenging because the diagnosis can be unclear or a balance needs to be achieved between minimising bleeding without precipitating thrombosis. Laboratory testing does provide assistance in assessment of a bleeding tendency but it is not uncommon for the results to be inconclusive. Investigations such as the level of von Willebrand factor assays should be regarded as a continuous risk factor for surgical bleeding rather than defining a disease category. Appropriate replacement therapy prior to surgery is effective in preventing surgical bleeding. Aggressive anti coagulant therapy around the time of surgery in patients who usually are on warfarin more often lead to unnecessary haemorrhage rather than preventing further thrombosis. A risk assessment of both bleeding versus thrombosis for the particular operation is necessary to ensure the best outcome.

Identification of von Willebrand disease type 2N (Normandy) in Australia: a cross-laboratory investigation using different methods

We report on a cross-laboratory study of type 2N von Willebrand disease (vWD). We tested 101 selected plasma samples for factor VIII and factor VIII binding activity of von Willebrand factor (vWF). Of these plasma samples, 31 were cotested by 2 specialist centers using different detection procedures for vWF-factor VIII binding: there was good agreement between results obtained by chromogenic assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In total, 8 patients with type 2N vWD were identified. The 2-stage factor VIII assay detected a deficiency of factor VIII relative to vWF antigen in all 8 patients; the 1-stage factor VIII assay detected a relative deficiency in only 3 patients. Four patients were homozygous for the most common type 2N mutation (R854Q), 3 patients were presumed to be compound heterozygotes, and in 1 patient no type 2N mutations were identified. In this study of patients from 5 specialist centers in Australia, type 2N vWD was found in 5 families. The 2-stage factor VIII assay was more useful as a screening test than the 1-stage assay, and both vWF-factor VIII binding assays were equally effective.

Appropriate laboratory assessment as a critical facet in the proper diagnosis and classification of von Willebrand disorder

The correct diagnosis and classification of von Willebrand disease or disorder (VWD) is crucial because the presenting biological activity of von Willebrand factor (VWF) determines both the haemorrhagic risk and the subsequent clinical management. A variety of laboratory assays may be employed, not necessarily restricted to assessments of VWF. Because of assay limitations and von Willebrand disease heterogeneity, no single test procedure is sufficiently 'robust' to permit the detection of all VWD variants. Classically, the test panel might include any combination of: (a) skin bleeding time, (b) von Willebrand factor antigen assay, (c) factor VIII C level, (d) assessment of 'functional' von Willebrand factor (collagen-binding activity or ristocetin co-factor assay), (e) ristocetin-induced platelet aggregation, and (f) multimer analysis. There have also been many new diagnostic developments that have begun to influence the diagnostic process. These include the automation of existing assay procedures, new automated platelet function analyzers such as the PFA-100, and specific von Willebrand factor-factor VIII-binding assays. This chapter focuses on the recommended laboratory process for the investigation of VWD. The selection of an appropriate combination test panel and testing sequence is crucial for the proper diagnosis and classification of congenital von Willebrand disease.