International external quality assessment for measurements of direct oral anticoagulants: results and recommendations

Performance of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) testing by hemostasis laboratories: The Australasian/Asia-Pacific experience

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reflect anticoagulation agents given to treat or prevent thrombosis, having largely replaced vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. DOACs are given in fixed daily doses and generally do not need monitoring. However, there may be a variety of reasons that justify measurement of plasma DOAC levels in individual patients.

METHODS

We report updated findings for DOAC testing in our geographic region, using recent data from the RCPAQAP, an international external quality assessment (EQA) program, currently with some 40-60 participants in each of the different DOAC (rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran) modules, to assess laboratory performance in this area. Data has been assessed for the past 5 years (2019-2023 inclusive), with 20 samples each per DOAC.

RESULTS

Data shows a limited repertoire of assays in use, and mostly consistency in reported numerical values when assessing proficiency samples. Available assays mostly comprised reagents from four manufacturing suppliers. There was good consistency across what participants identified as 'DOAC detected', but some variability when participants attempted to grade DOAC levels as low vs moderate vs high. Inter-laboratory/method coefficient of variation (CVs) were generally <15% for each DOAC, when present at >100 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

We hope our findings, reflecting on mostly consistent reporting of DOAC levels and interpretation provides reassurance for clinicians requesting these measurements, and helps support their implementation in regions where there is a paucity of test availability.

ANMCO/SIMEU consensus document on the use of reversal agents for antithrombotic therapies in patients with ongoing bleeding or at high risk of haemorrhagic events

In recent decades, an incredible evolution in antithrombotic therapies used for treating patients with atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and venous thromboembolism has been observed, leading to the availability of increasingly safe drugs. Nonetheless, bleeding complications remain a significant concern, with considerable health, social, and economic implications. To improve the acute management of patients experiencing or at risk for major bleeding events, specific reversal agents for antithrombotic drugs have been recently developed. While these agents demonstrate effectiveness in small-scale pharmacodynamic studies and clinical trials, it is imperative to balance the benefits of reversing antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy against the risk of prothrombotic effects. These risks include the potential loss of antithrombotic protection and the prothrombotic tendencies associated with bleeding, major surgery, or trauma. This joint document of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri) and the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (Società Italiana di Medicina d'Emergenza-Urgenza) delineates the key features and efficacy of available reversal agents. It also provides practical flowcharts to guide their use in patients with active bleeding or those at elevated risk of major bleeding events.

Comparisons between diluted thrombin time, ecarin chromogenic assays, and UPLC-MS for plasma level dabigatran quantification: Results from DRIVING study

INTRODUCTION

The knowledge of dabigatran levels is helpful for decision-making in specific situations such as urgent surgery or when the question of reversal arises (uncontrolled bleeding, eligibility for thrombolysis). However, a limited number of observational studies are available regarding comparisons between quantification methods. The objective of the study was to compare dabigatran plasma levels using three assays including the reference method (high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry), focusing on the agreement around the 30-50 ng/mL clinically relevant thresholds.

METHODS

Sixty healthy volunteers from DRIVING trial (NCT01627665) were given a single 300-mg dabigatran etexilate dose. Serial blood samplings were performed at pre-defined time points (0 to 24 h). We analyzed plasma samples using ultra-performance-liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) (dabigatran reference method); ii/diluted thrombin time (dTT) (Hemoclot-DTI-Hyphen-Biomed); iii/ecarin-based chromogenic assay (ECA-II-Stago).

RESULTS

Nine hundred sixty samples were analyzed using the three assays (2759 values). dTT and ECA-II values were highly correlated with those of UPLC-MS (Deming regression). Most values >50 ng/mL were higher using dTT and ECA-II compared to UPLC-MS: biases were constant, +14% and +16% with dTT and ECA-II, respectively (Bland-Altman plots), suggesting that active metabolites accounted for ~15% of thrombin inhibition. Regarding values <30 ng/mL, 30-50 ng/mL, or ≥50 ng/mL, the agreement probability between dTT and ECA-II was of 90.6% [88.4-92.5] (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.84).

CONCLUSION

dTT and ECA-II assays rapidly provide accurate dabigatran-level results for clinical practice, both assays being suitable in emergency, taking into account the thrombin inhibitory effect of dabigatran metabolites.

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.

The role of anticoagulation clinics needs to be reassessed to include follow up of patients on direct oral anticoagulants

A survey was carried out to assess the state of organization of care (including clinical and laboratory) delivered to patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) followed by clinics affiliated with the Italian Federation of Thrombosis Centers (FCSA), traditionally engaged to assist anticoagulated outpatients within the country. Participants were asked to answer questions concerning (i) proportion of patients on VKA-vs-DOAC and (ii) whether dedicated testing for DOAC is available. The proportion of patients on VKA-vs-DOAC was 60 % vs 40 %. This proportion is in sharp contrast with the real-life distribution where DOAC outweigh VKA prescriptions. Furthermore, the proportion of anticoagulation clinics that provide DOAC testing (even in special situations) is relatively small (i.e., 31 % of the respondents). Furthermore, 25 % of those that declared to follow DOAC patients do not provide any testing at all. The answers to the above questions cause concerns as (i) most patients on DOAC within the country are probably on self-management, or they are managed by general practitioners or specialists outside thrombosis centers. (ii) Most patients on DOAC have no access to testing even in special situations where it would be needed. We feel that there is a (false) perception that the care needed for DOAC treatment can be much less than that required for VKA, as DOAC require prescription and not regular follow-up. A call for action should be urgently made to reassess the role of anticoagulation clinics, which should pay the same attention to patients on DOAC as those on VKA.

Implementation of the new EUR IVD regulation and relation with ISO15189 accreditation: Guidance is urgently required for haemostasis testing

On May 26th 2017 the European Parliament and the Council of The European Union adopted the new regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR)-Regulation EU 2017/746-planned to be applied from May 26th 2022 in substitution to the previous IVD directives (IVDD 98/79 EC). After several health and legal causes due to medical device malfunctions, the European Union (EU) extensively reviewed the previous regulatory, which had remained unchanged since 1998. Aim of the work is to analyse the effects of the new IVDR on the field of haemostasis and thrombosis testing with particular attention to specific clinical conditions. Clinical laboratories will mainly deal with three different situations: (1) Diagnostic test performed with IVDR products used according with clinical indication certified by manufacturers. (2) Diagnostic test performed with certified IVDR products without clinical validation. (3) Diagnostic test performed with reagents classified as Research Use Only (RUO). At present, only few clinical laboratories through different European countries have been prepared to the new IVDR, while many laboratories are not yet aware about crucial aspects of the new process that deeply involves laboratory medicine. In conclusion, each laboratory should be aware of the IVDR certification of the reagents/instruments used in its laboratory. There are several urgent needs regarding IVDR certification: studies about the clinical performance of haemostasis tests, guidelines for LDTs (definition and documentation), internal and external quality controls for the tests recommended/suggested in the guidance/guidelines and finally implementation and/or update of clinical and laboratory guidelines.

The Interlaboratory Performance in Measurement of Dabigatran and Rivaroxaban: Results of the College of American Pathologists External Quality Assessment Program

CONTEXT.—

Assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug levels by reliable laboratory assays is necessary in a number of clinical scenarios.

OBJECTIVE.—

To evaluate the performance of DOAC-specific assays for various concentrations of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, assess the interlaboratory variability in measurement of these DOACs, and investigate the responsiveness of the routine clotting assays to various concentrations of these oral anticoagulants.

DESIGN.—

College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data from 2013 to 2016 were summarized and analyzed.

RESULTS.—

For dabigatran, the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) of ecarin chromogenic assay was broad (ranging from 7.5% to 29.1%, 6.3% to 15.5%, and 6.8% to 9.0% for 100-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The CV for diluted thrombin time for dabigatran was better overall (ranging from 11.6% to 17.2%, 9.3% to 12.3, and 7.1% to 11.2% for 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). The rivaroxaban-calibrated anti-Xa assay CVs also showed variability (ranging from 11.5% to 22.2%, 7.2% to 10.9%, and 6.4% to 8.1% for 50-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) showed variable dose and reagent-dependent responsiveness to DOACs: PT was more responsive to rivaroxaban and aPTT to dabigatran. The undiluted thrombin time showed maximum prolongation across all 3 dabigatran concentrations, making it too sensitive for drug-level monitoring, but supporting its use as a qualitative screening assay.

CONCLUSIONS.—

DOAC-specific assays performed reasonably well. While PT and aPTT cannot be used safely to determine DOAC degree of anticoagulation, a normal thrombin time excludes the presence of dabigatran.

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.

Analytical verification and comparison of chromogenic assays for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban determination on BCSXP and STA Compact Max analysers

Introduction

The aim of the study was to perform analytical verification and comparison of chromogenic assays for determination of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban concentration on BCSXP and STA Compact Max analysers.

Materials and methods

Precision, linearity, measurement uncertainty estimation and determination of limit of blank, limit of determination and limit of quantification were calculated. Analytical performance specifications were set according to manufacturer specifications and literature data on between laboratory variability. Comparison of the methods was done using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analysis.

Results

Obtained results have shown acceptable precision on STA Compact Max only for dabigatran (CV = 3.5%) at lower concentration level comparing to manufacturer declaration (CV = 3.6%). On BCSXP, the highest coefficient of variation has been shown for apixaban (6.1%) at lower concentration level. Within laboratory precision was not met on STA Compact Max for all assays. Bland-Altman analysis has shown statistically significant bias for dabigatran (23.2%, 95%CI 11.2 - 35.3; P < 0.001) and apixaban (8.4%, 95%CI 1.2 - 15.6; P = 0.023). Passing-Bablok regression analysis has shown systematic and proportional deviation between methods for rivaroxaban (y = 6.52 (2.94 to 11.83) + 0.84 (0.80 to 0.89) x.

Conclusion

Chromogenic assays for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban on BCSXP and STA Compact Max analysers are shown as methods with satisfactory long-term analytical performance specifications for determination of direct oral anticoagulants in clinical laboratories. However, we cannot recommend interchangeable use because of the significant bias between assays.