Marked discrepancy between coagulometric Protein C activity assays with the pro-thrombotic Protein C Asn2Ile substitution

Thrombophilia Screening: Not So Straightforward

Although inherited thrombophilias are lifelong risk factors for a first thrombotic episode, progression to thrombosis is multifactorial and not all individuals with inherited thrombophilia develop thrombosis in their lifetimes. Consequently, indiscriminate screening in patients with idiopathic thrombosis is not recommended, since presence of a thrombophilia does not necessarily predict recurrence or influence management, and testing should be selective. It follows that a decision to undertake laboratory detection of thrombophilia should be aligned with a concerted effort to identify any significant abnormalities, because it will inform patient management. Deficiencies of antithrombin and protein C are rare and usually determined using phenotypic assays assessing biological activities, whereas protein S deficiency (also rare) is commonly detected with antigenic assays for the free form of protein S since available activity assays are considered to lack specificity. In each case, no single phenotypic assay is capable of detecting every deficiency, because the various mutations express different molecular characteristics, rendering thrombophilia screening repertoires employing one assay per potential deficiency, of limited effectiveness. Activated protein C resistance (APCR) is more common than discrete deficiencies of antithrombin, protein C, and protein S and also often detected initially with phenotypic assays; however, some centres perform only genetic analysis for factor V Leiden, as this is responsible for most cases of hereditary APCR, accepting that acquired APCR and rare F5 mutations conferring APCR will go undetected if only factor V Leiden is evaluated. All phenotypic assays have interferences and limitations, which must be factored into decisions about if, and when, to test, and be given consideration in the laboratory during assay performance and interpretation. This review looks in detail at performance and limitations of routine phenotypic thrombophilia assays.

Laboratory Limitations of Excluding Hereditary Protein C Deficiency by Chromogenic Assay: Discrepancies of Phenotype and Genotype

Protein C (PC) deficiency is associated with an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). In daily practice, exclusion of a hereditary PC deficiency is often based on a single determination of PC activity, by either clotting time–based or mostly chromogenic assay. However, diagnosis of hereditary PC deficiency is challenging due to several laboratory and clinical limitations. We compared the potential of PC activity values measured by either chromogenic or clotting time–based assay to predict a variation in the PROC gene. One hundred one (35%) of 287 patients carried variations within the PROC gene, including 2 previously not published variations. In 20 (20%) patients with identified variation, PC activity, determined by chromogenic assay, was within the reference range. For prediction of an underlying genetic defect determined by chromogenic and clotting time–based assay, sensitivity was 80% versus 99%, specificity 75% versus 18%, positive predictive value 64% versus 39%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 88% versus 97%. The lower NPV of chromogenic versus clotting time–based PC assay can be mainly explained by the presence of PC deficiency type IIb. Following our proposed diagnostic algorithm, additional measurement of PC activity by clotting time–based assay in case of a positive VTE history improves detection of this subtype of PC deficiency. Considering potential therapeutic consequences for primary and especially for secondary VTE prophylaxis, genetic analysis is required not only for confirmation but also for clarification of PC deficiency.

Recommendations for clinical laboratory testing for protein C deficiency, for the subcommittee on plasma coagulation inhibitors of the ISTH

Inherited protein C (PC) deficiency increases risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by 5 to 10-fold in thrombosis-prone families; however, heterozygous PC deficiency alone does not determine that a subject has thrombophilia. Protein C deficient subjects, who lack additional inherited risk factors such as factor V Leiden or have no major acquired risk factors, may not suffer from VTE. In addition, PC deficiency may be acquired, often due to vitamin K antagonist treatment or liver disease. In contrast, homozygous or compound heterozygous PC deficiencies are rare and serious disorders, and affected infants are often in families with no history of PC deficiency or thrombosis. Laboratories commonly use the chromogenic PC assay to diagnose deficiency. Chromogenic assay is recommended due to its good specificity, but this assay fails to detect the rare type 2b deficiency where the defect is due to poor interaction with calcium ions, phospholipid, protein S, and factor Va and factor VIIIa. The clotting-based assay of PC is capable of detecting type 2b deficiency but it has reduced specificity. Importantly, PC level varies with age, adult reference ranges cannot be applied to babies or children and levels may not reach those of adults even in adolescence. Pre-analytical variables in the specimen affect measurement of PC, and can be assay-dependent; for example, a partially clotted sample will have falsely raised PC level by chromogenic assay but reduced level by clotting-based assay. Direct oral anticoagulants falsely raise PC level in the clotting-based assay but the standard chromogenic assay is unaffected.

Comparison of clot-based and chromogenic assay for the determination of protein c activity

Activated protein C inactivates factor Va and VIIIa. Deficiency of this natural anticoagulant may result in recurrent venous thrombosis. Performance characteristics of clot-based and chromogenic protein C activity assays are different. The clot-based assay has limitations because of interference with coagulation inhibitors resulting in spuriously increased protein C levels or underestimation because of elevated levels of factor VIII and Factor V-Leiden mutation. The chromogenic assay is not influenced by such interferences but only detects functional defects of protein C that involve the active site rendering it insensitive to rare mutations. To compare two methods, we conducted a retrospective study from January 2015 to June 2017. Our results showed a good correlation between clot-based and chromogenic assay (R = 0.94 and r² = 0.88). The study of agreement between the two methods by the Bland–Altman method showed that chromogenic method on an average measures 7.8% more protein C than that of clot-based. The results also showed that the bias between the two methods is significant. The positive trend noted was contributed by the values of less than 20% of protein C. Both clot-based and chromogenic assays had high sensitivity; however, the chromogenic assay showed better specificity (97%) as compared with the clot-based assay (93%). In conclusion, we recommend the chromogenic method as the assay of choice, which is also recommended by the College of American Pathologist Consensus Study over activated partial thromboplastin time-based assay. We have shown here that despite a good correlation between the two techniques, there is a difference as highlighted by the difference plots.

Protein C assay performance: an analysis of North American specialized coagulation laboratory association proficiency testing results

To determine the performance and frequency of protein C reagents currently used by clinical laboratories, we analyzed North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) protein C proficiency testing data from 6 surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 (2009-1 to 2009-3 and 2010-1 to 2010-3). Interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CV) for commonly used reagents on a survey with normal protein C ranged from 8% to 12% for antigenic assays, from 4% to 7% for chromogenic activity assays, and from 7% to 22% for clot-based activity assays. CVs for commonly used reagents on specimens with abnormal protein C ranged from 15% to 24% for antigenic, 4% to 11% for chromogenic, and 10% to 17% for clot-based assays (averaged across 3 surveys). Some reagents were used by relatively few laboratories and therefore additional study may be needed for those reagents. For all commonly used reagents, biases were usually small and often not statistically significant. All assessed reagents were clinically accurate, and were considered acceptable options for a specialized coagulation laboratory.