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

New method to differentiate between lupus anticoagulants, progressive coagulation inhibitors and coagulation factor deficiencies in the mixing tests

INTRODUCTION

Mixing tests in activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are used for the differentiation between lupus anticoagulants (LA), coagulation inhibitors, and factor deficient samples with APTT prolongation. However, the indexes for the differentiation have not been established. The present study aimed to develop new mixing test indexes for the differentiation.

METHODS

Twenty-six LA-positive, 8 progressive coagulation factor VIII inhibitor, and 35 coagulation deficient samples were employed. APTT were measured for normal plasma, patient plasma, and mixing plasma prepared at a ratio of 1:1 proportion in both without incubation and 2 h-incubation. New two parameters named as ALD50 and mixture plasma-patient plasma after Warming change rate Subtraction (WaS) calculated from the clotting times of normal, 1:1 mixing and patient samples with/without 2 h-incubation were established. In the samples with WaS result of <10.2%, ALD50 of ≥87.8%, and < 87.8% were defined as LA and coagulation factor deficiency, respectively, and WaS of ≥10.2% defined progressive coagulation factor inhibitors.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity to LA were 80.8% and 93.0% for ALD50, and sensitivity and specificity to progressive coagulation factor inhibitor were 100.0% and 100.0% for WaS, respectively. The agreement between sample classification and WaS-ALD50 was 88.4% (61/69).

CONCLUSIONS

ALD50 and WaS showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity to LA and progressive coagulation factor inhibitor, respectively. These indexes would be useful for the differentiation between LA, factor deficiency, and progressive coagulation factor inhibitor in the mixing tests.

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.

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.

Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three laboratory parameters (the others being antibodies to either cardiolipin or β2-glycoprotein I) that defines this rare but potentially devastating condition. For the search for aCL and aβ2-GP-I, traditionally measured with immunological solid-phase assays (ELISA), several different assays and detection techniques are currently available, thus making these tests relatively reliable and widespread. On the other hand, LA detection is based on functional coagulation procedures that are characterized by poor standardization, difficulties in interpreting the results, and interference by several drugs commonly used in the clinical settings in which LA search is appropriate. This article aims to review the current state of the art and the challenges that clinicians and laboratories incur in the detection of LA.

Testing for Lupus Anticoagulants

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) employed in classification, and by default diagnosis, of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Detection of LA is not via calibrated assays but is based on functional behavior of the antibodies in a medley of coagulation assays. A prolonged clotting time in a screening test is followed by demonstration of phospholipid dependence and inhibitory properties in confirmatory and mixing tests, respectively, which are modifications of the parent screening test. Complications arise because no single screening test is sensitive to every LA, and no test is specific for LA, because they are prone to interference by other causes of elevated clotting times. Several screening tests are available but the pairing of dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) with LA-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is widely used and recommended because it is proven to have good detection rates. Nonetheless, judicious use of other assays can improve diagnostic performance, such as dilute prothrombin time to find LA unreactive with dRVVT and aPTT, and the recently validated Taipan snake venom time with ecarin time confirmatory test that are unaffected by vitamin K antagonist and direct factor Xa inhibitor anticoagulation. Expert body guidelines and their updates have improved harmonization of laboratory practices, although some issues continue to attract debate, such as the place of mixing tests in the medley hierarchy, and areas of data manipulation such as assay cut-offs and ratio generation. This article reviews current practices and challenges in the laboratory detection of LA.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.

Pulmonary embolus associated with a rare provoking factor: recreational nitrous oxide use

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common acute presentation which may be provoked by multiple factors. We present the unique case of a young man with no underlying health conditions who was diagnosed with bilateral PE which we believe was provoked by chronic use of nitrous oxide (NO), a potentially under-recognised risk factor for PE. NO is a substance that is commonly used recreationally, particularly among young adults in the UK. It has been shown to increase serum homocysteine levels which may create a prothrombotic state.Our patient had raised serum homocysteine levels on admission. He was anticoagulated and discharged with advice to stop nitrous oxide use. We recommend asking patients about recreational drug use when screening for provoking factors for PE so as to offer appropriate treatment and counselling.

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.

Applying index of circulating anticoagulant to mixing tests with lupus anticoagulant screen and confirm reagents can distinguish with high specificity between lupus anticoagulants and direct factor Xa inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are detected by prolongation of clotting times for dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) screening tests. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can interfere with both screening and confirmatory tests. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of direct factor Xa inhibitors (DiXaIs) on screen, confirm and mixing tests and establish a method for differentiation from other sample types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 257 samples including nonanticoagulated LA positive, LA positive with DiXaIs, factor deficiency, FVIII inhibitors, warfarin and non-APS DiXaIs were tested. APTT reagents Cephen LS/Cephen and dRVVT reagents LA1/LA2 were used, respectively, to screen/confirm the study group. Index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) was calculated from clotting times based on the following formula as ICA screening and ICA confirmation. ICA= (1:1 Mix sample - Normal pooled plasma) / Screen patient x 100. An ICA matrix was established which suggested the presence of a DiXaI when both ICA screening and confirmation were above the cut-off. When only ICA screening is elevated, LA is suspected.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the ICA matrix were 52.2% and 92.8% for DiXaIs and 38.1% and 96.7% for LA in APTT, and 61.2% and 92.9% for DiXaIs and 22.2% and 88.4% for LA in dRVVT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ICA matrix achieved high specificity with a lower apparent sensitivity for DiXaI samples comparatively to other devices but due only to less interferences: the matrix could contribute to differentiating DiXaIs from LA in samples where anticoagulation status is unknown.

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.