Pleiotropic anticoagulant functions of protein S, consequences for the clinical laboratory. Communication from the SSC of the ISTH

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 Evaluation of Antithrombin, Protein C, and Protein S

Thrombophilia is a complex disease process, clinically manifesting in various forms of venous thromboembolism. Although both genetic and acquired (or environmental) risks factors have been reported, the presence of a genetic defect (antithrombin [AT], protein C [PC], protein S [PS]) is considered three of the major contributing factors of thrombophilia. The presence of each of these risk factors can be established by clinical laboratory analysis; however, the clinical provider and laboratory personnel must understand the testing limitations and shortcomings associated with the assays for these factors to be able to ensure an accurate diagnosis. This article will describe the major pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical issues associated with the various types of assays and discuss evidence-based algorithms for analyzing AT, PC, and PS in plasma.

The impact of PROS1 mutation position on thrombotic risk in protein S-deficient patients

Background

Inherited protein S deficiency is a thrombophilic risk factor associated with venous thromboembolism. However, there is not much data on the impact of mutation position on thrombotic risk.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of thrombosis due to mutations located in the sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)-like region as opposed to the rest of the protein.

Methods

Genetic analysis of PROS1 was performed in 76 patients with suspected inherited protein S deficiency, and the effect of missense mutations present in the SHBG region on thrombosis risk was analyzed by statistical methods.

Results

We found 30 unique mutations (13 of them novel), of which 17 were missense mutations, in 70 patients. Patients with missense mutations were then divided into 2 groups: the "SHBG-region" mutation group (27 patients) and the "non-SHBG" group (24 patients). The multivariable binary logistic regression analysis showed that mutation position in the SHBG region of protein S is an independent risk factor for thrombosis in deficient patients (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.29-20.65; P = .02). The patients with a mutation in the SHBG-like region also developed a thrombotic event at a younger age compared to the "non-SHBG" group in the Kaplan-Meier analysis (median thrombosis-free survival of 33 vs 47 years, respectively; P = .018).

Conclusion

Our findings show that a missense mutation located in the SHBG-like region may contribute to higher thrombotic risk rather than a missense mutation located elsewhere in the protein. However, as our cohort was relatively small, these findings should be taken with this limitation.

Tranexamic Acid and Plasminogen/Plasmin Glaring Paradox in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a severe acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), leading to acute tissue injury and an overstated immune response. In COVID-19, there are noteworthy changes in the fibrinolytic system with the development of coagulopathy. Therefore, modulation of the fibrinolytic system may affect the course of COVID-19. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an anti-fibrinolytic drug that reduces the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin, which is necessary for SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. In addition, TXA has anti-inflammatory, anti-platelet, and anti-thrombotic effects, which may attenuate the COVID-19 severity. Thus, in this narrative review, we try to find the beneficial and harmful effects of TXA in COVID-19.

Laboratory Evaluation of Thrombophilia

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs typically in the veins of the lower extremities and/or as pulmonary embolism. There is a myriad of causes of VTE ranging from provoked causes (e.g., surgery, cancer) to unprovoked causes (e.g., inherited abnormalities) or multiple factors that combine to initiate the cause. Thrombophilia is a complex, multi-factorial disease that may result in VTE. The mechanism(s) and causes of thrombophilia are complex and not completely understood. In healthcare today, only some answers about the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prevention of thrombophilia have been elucidated. The laboratory analysis for thrombophilia is not consistently applied, and has changed over time, but remains varied by providers and laboratories as well. Both groups must establish harmonized guidelines for patient selection and appropriate conditions for analysis of inherited and acquired risk factors. This chapter discusses the pathophysiology of thrombophilia, and evidence-based medicine guidelines discuss the optimum laboratory testing algorithms and protocols for selection and analyzing VTE patients to ensure a cost-effective use of limited resources.

Cost-Effective Use of the Protein S Algorithm in Thrombophilia Testing

Background

One of the most complex risk factors for the laboratory assessment of thrombophilia is Protein S (PS). The testing algorithm for PS employs the plasma-based assays of free PS antigen, total PS antigen, and PS activity creating a complex diagnostic scheme that can lead to misdiagnosis if incorrectly used, and a potential waste of resources and money.

Content

This paper compares the recently published evidence-based algorithm from the International Society for Hemostasis and Thrombosis (ISTH) with several commonly performed nonevidence-based testing schemes, to demonstrate the efficiency of the evidence-based algorithm for diagnostic efficiency with improved patient care and increased cost savings for the laboratory.

Summary

Significant savings (31%–60%) can be realized when the evidence-based algorithm is used in place of other testing modalities of initial PS activity testing (31%) or testing with all 3 assays simultaneously (60%). This study utilizing the PS testing evidence-based algorithm as part of a thrombophilia evaluation demonstrates that the appropriate testing methods can be used to limit wasteful practices while achieving the maximum level of information in this time of limited resources and need for increase monetary savings.

Snake Venoms in Diagnostic Hemostasis and Thrombosis

Snake venoms have evolved primarily to immobilize and kill prey, and consequently, they contain some of the most potent natural toxins. Part of that armory is a range of hemotoxic components that affect every area of hemostasis, which we have harnessed to great effect in the study and diagnosis of hemostatic disorders. The most widely used are those that affect coagulation, such as thrombin-like enzymes unaffected by heparin and direct thrombin inhibitors, which can help confirm or dispute their presence in plasma. The liquid gold of coagulation activators is Russell's viper venom, since it contains activators of factor X and factor V. It is used in a range of clotting-based assays, such as assessment of factor X and factor V deficiencies, protein C and protein S deficiencies, activated protein C resistance, and probably the most important test for lupus anticoagulants, the dilute Russell's viper venom time. Activators of prothrombin, such as oscutarin C from Coastal Taipan venom and ecarin from saw-scaled viper venom, are employed in prothrombin activity assays and lupus anticoagulant detection, and ecarin has a valuable role in quantitative assays of direct thrombin inhibitors. Snake venoms affecting primary hemostasis include botrocetin from the jararaca, which can be used to assay von Willebrand factor activity, and convulxin from the cascavel, which can be used to detect deficiency of the platelet collagen receptor, glycoprotein VI. This article takes the reader to every area of the diagnostic hemostasis laboratory to appreciate the myriad applications of snake venoms available in diagnostic practice.

Effect on Plasma Protein S Activity in Patients Receiving the Factor Xa Inhibitors

AIMS

Measurement of protein S (PS) activity in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) using reagents based on a clotting assay results in falsely high PS activity, thus masking inherited PS deficiency, which is most frequently seen in the Japanese population. In this study, we investigated the effect of factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors on PS activity using the reagent on the basis of the chromogenic assay, which was recently developed in Japan.

METHODS

The study enrolled 152 patients (82 males and 70 females; the average age: 68.5±14.0 years) receiving three FXa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and apixaban). PS activity was measured using the reagents on the basis of the clotting and chromogenic assays.

RESULTS

PS activity measured by the clotting assay reagents exhibited falsely high values depending on the plasma concentrations of FXa inhibitors in patients taking either rivaroxaban or edoxaban. However, none of the three FXa inhibitors affected PS activity when measured using the chromogenic assay.

CONCLUSION

In patients taking rivaroxaban or edoxaban, inherited PS deficiency is likely missed because the levels of PS activity measured using the reagents based on the clotting assay are falsely high. However, we report that three FXa inhibitors do not affect PS activity measured by the chromogenic assay. When measuring the levels of PS activity in patients undergoing DOACs, the principles of each reagent should be understood. Furthermore, plasma samples must be collected at the time when plasma concentrations of DOACs are lowest or the DOAC-Stop reagent should be used.