Index of circulating anticoagulant cut-off value establishment in activated partial thromboplastin time mixing test for lupus anticoagulant diagnosis

Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies: Current State of the Art

Mixing studies have long been in the clinical laboratory armamentarium for investigating unexpected, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) or prothrombin time (PT). The purpose of the mixing study is to identify whether the aPTT/PT prolongation is secondary to a factor deficiency versus an inhibitor, which would present as a "corrected" and "noncorrected" mixing study, respectively. The differentiation between a factor deficiency and inhibitor may likely further direct clinical decisions, including additional diagnostic testing or factor replacement therapy. While aPTT/PT mixing studies are simple tests to perform, there is a lack of standardization for both the testing protocol and the interpretation of what is considered to be a corrected or noncorrected mixing study result. This review will describe the common indications for the mixing test, preanalytic variables that may affect mixing study performance, and describe several methods for interpreting the results of aPTT and PT mixing tests.

Newly developed dilute Russell's viper venom reagents for lupus anticoagulant detection with improved specificity

Background Dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) is indispensible in lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection yet commercial reagents from different suppliers perform variably, no gold standard assays exist and therapeutic anticoagulation interference is problematic. Objective The objective of this study was to compare a new formulation dRVVT with two currently available dRVVTs. Materials and methods Life Diagnostics (LD) dRVVT and Stago PTT-LA were routinely used for lupus anticoagulant detection, plus Taipan snake venom time/ecarin time (TSVT/ET) for patients on warfarin or rivaroxaban. Siemens dRVVT and the new HYPHEN BioMed (HBM) dRVVT were tested with 193 patient samples. Group 1, 59 non-anticoagulated patients (NAPs) LA-positive in LD dRVVT; Group 2, 15 PTT-LA-positive/dRVVT-negative NAPs; Group 3, 24 LA-positive warfarinized patients; Group 4, 13 patients on rivaroxaban; Group 5, 62 LA-negative thrombotic NAPs; Group 6, 20 warfarinized, non-antiphospholipid syndrome patients. Results Accepting that the Life Diagnostics reagents were acting as a pseudo-gold standard, Siemens dRVVT detected 56/59, (95%) Group 1 LA and HBM dRVVT 46/59, (76%), one each from Group 2, and Siemens dRVVT detected one in Group 5. The lower HBM dRVVT detection rate mainly concerned weaker LA, where between-reagent concordance is problematic. All Group 3 patients appeared LA-positive in undiluted plasma with Siemens dRVVT, as did 16/24 (67%) with HBM dRVVT but the fewer LA-positives in mixing tests better mapped to clear LA-positives with LD dRVVT. LD and Siemens dRVVTs exhibited 87% and 95% false-positivity for Group 6 whilst HBM dRVVT had none. Increasing the cut-off improved accuracy. Applying higher cut-offs improved accuracy in Group 4 patients. Conclusion HBM dRVVT exhibited improved specificity, mainly due to less interference by anticoagulation, but reduced sensitivity, compared to the other dRVVTs employed.

Lupus anticoagulant mixing tests for multiple reagents are more sensitive if interpreted with a mixing test-specific cut-off than index of circulating anticoagulant

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is classified in the antibody family that is recognized as antiphospholipid antibodies. Guidelines for LA detection recommend mixing test interpretation with either a mixing test specific cut-off (MTC) or index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA). We previously evidenced that MTC was superior to ICA in detecting the in vitro inhibition of LA with a single dilute APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) and dRVVT (diluted Russell's viper venom time) pairing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective in the present study was to compare the LA diagnostic effectiveness of MTC and ICA by multiple APTT and dRVVT reagents.

METHODS

One hundred-five samples from non-anticoagulated patients positive for LA in the dilute APTT (dAPTT) and dRVVT reagent pairing employed for diagnostic examination were performed by undiluted and in a 1:1 mix with normal pooled plasma with four additional APTT reagents and another dRVVT reagent (dRVVT B).

RESULTS

Frequencies of MTC and ICA positivity were determined from samples LA positive in undiluted plasma. MTC positivity in mixing test were 63%, 77%, 80%, 84%, 46%, 81%, and 72% in 4 APTT, dAPTT and 2 dRVVT, respectively. ICA positivity were 47%, 67%, 58%, 54%, 42%, 47%, and 29%, respectively. There were no samples of ICA-positive/MTC-negative with any reagent.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that MTC is superior to ICA for LA detection in mixing tests in multiple reagents and reagent types. Although mixing tests may make weak LA samples appear negative, the efficacy of LA detection can be improved by the method to interpret the results.

Current Controversies in Lupus Anticoagulant Detection

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune, acquired thrombophilia diagnosed when vascular thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity are accompanied by persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are one of the criteria antibodies but calibration plasmas are unavailable and they are detected by inference based on antibody behaviour in a medley of coagulation-based assays. Elevated screening tests suggest the presence of a LA, which is confirmed with mixing tests to evidence inhibition and confirmatory tests to demonstrate phospholipid-dependence. At least two screening tests of different principle must be used to account for antibody heterogeneity and controversy exists on whether assays, in addition to dilute Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time, should be employed. A variety of approaches to raw data manipulation and interpretation attract debate, as does inclusion or exclusion of mixing studies in circumstances where the presence of a LA is already evident from other results. Therapeutic anticoagulation compromises coagulation-based assays but careful data interpretation and use of alternative reagents can detect or exclude LA in specific circumstances, and this aspect of LA detection continues to evolve. This review focuses on the main areas of debate in LA detection.

New formulas for mixing test to discriminate between lupus anticoagulant and acquired hemophilia A

INTRODUCTION

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is an antibody that interferes with in vitro coagulation reactions. The mixing test is considered useful for LA diagnosis and is also recommended to differentiate between acquired hemophilia A (AHA) and factor deficiency. However, there has been little study to differentiate between LA and AHA. Our aims are to investigate whether we can differentiate LA and AHA by the mixing test and to establish new formulas for the mixing test to differentiate these samples clearly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined 27 LA-positive, 29 coagulation factor deficient, 24 unfractionated heparin and 48 AHA samples. Index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) values, calculated from the clotting times without incubation and after 2h incubation, were defined as ICA immediate (ICAi) and ICA delayed (ICAd) respectively. ICAd/ICAi and ICAd-ICAi were also calculated to compare the sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

ICAd/ICAi and ICAd-ICAi for AHA samples were significantly higher than those of the other sample groups. The sensitivities to AHA in ICAi, ICAd, ICAd/ICAi and ICAd-ICAi were 66.7%, 81.3%, 93.8% and 91.7% respectively, while the specificities for AHA were 45.0%, 66.3%, 85.0% and 98.8% respectively. ICAd/ICAi and ICAd-ICAi showed high sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

ICAd/ICAi and ICAd-ICAi were useful for LA and AHA diagnosis, because these could differentiate between LA and AHA samples. These new formulas can contribute to the rapid diagnosis and treatment of LA and AHA.