Is it possible to make a common reference standard for D-dimer measurements? Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Fibrinolysis

The performance of quantitative D-dimer assays in Chinese clinical laboratories by analyzing data from National External quality Assessment Scheme

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To investigate performance of D-dimer assays in China and address analytical quality issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

D-dimer assays data were collected from China National External Quality Assessment Scheme (China NEQAS) from 2014 to 2022. We analyzed reagents, assay results, reporting unit and cutoffs in 2022 China NEQAS. Interlaboratory coefficient variations (CVs) and influence of modified/unmodified test systems on CVs were investigated over 9 years.

RESULTS

There were 82 reagent brands in China NEQAS, but 55 reagent instructions did not indicate expression unit (DDU or FEU). Up to 7-fold of the ratio of max-to-min mean results was shown among different assays with same unit on the same sample. A prevalence of FEU (63.4%) over DDU (17.1%) was observed. Although 669 laboratories (37.9%) among 1766 laboratories used reagents without VTE exclusion claim, they also reported cutoffs. The CVs of only two assays were decreasing over years. CVs of modified test systems were higher than those of unmodified systems before improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Expression unit should be required to label in package inserts by regulatory authority. Laboratory professionals should follow instructions for use and prefer unmodified test systems for clinical safely application. Harmonization of reporting units through collaborative efforts is the promising step.

Assessment of accuracy of laboratory testing results, relative to peer group consensus values in external quality control, by bivariate z-score analysis: the example of D-Dimer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to develop a practical method for bivariate z-score analysis which can be applied to the survey of an external quality assessment programme.

METHODS

To develop the bivariate z-score analysis, the results of four surveys of the international D-Dimer external quality assessment programme of 2022 of the ECAT Foundation were used. The proposed methodology starts by identifying the bivariate outliers, using a Supervised Sequential Hotelling T2 control chart. The outlying data are removed, and all the remaining data are used to provide robust estimates of the parameters of the assumed underlying bivariate normal distribution. Based on these estimates two nested homocentric ellipses are drawn, corresponding to confidence levels of 95 and 99.7 %. The bivariate z-score plot described provides the laboratory with an indication of both systematic and random deviations from zero z-score values. The bivariate z-score analysis was examined within survey 2022-D4 across the three most frequently used methods.

RESULTS

The number of z-score pairs included varied between 830 and 857 and the number of bivariate outliers varied between 20 and 28. The correlation between the z-score pairs varied between 0.431 and 0.647. The correlation between the z-score pairs for the three most frequently used varied between 0.208 and 0.636.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the bivariate z-score analysis is of major importance when multiple samples are distributed around in the same survey and dependency of the results is likely. Important lessons can be drawn from the shape of the ellipse with respect to random and systematic deviations, while individual laboratories have been informed about their position in the state-of-the-art distribution and whether they have to deal with systematic and/or random deviations.

Advances in D-dimer testing: progress in harmonization of clinical assays and innovative detection methods

The D-dimer is a sensitive indicator of coagulation and fibrinolysis activation, especially valuable as a biomarker of intravascular thrombosis. Measurement of plasma D-dimer levels plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and monitoring of conditions such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. A variety of immunoassays, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assays, whole-blood aggregation analysis, and immunochromatography assays, are widely used in clinical settings to determine D-dimer levels. However, the results obtained from different D-dimer assays vary significantly. These assays exhibit intra-method coefficients of variation ranging from 6.4% to 17.7%, and the measurement discrepancies among different assays can be as high as 20-fold. The accuracy and reliability of D-dimer testing cannot be guaranteed due to the lack of an internationally endorsed reference measurement system (including reference materials and reference measurement procedures), which may lead to misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis, limiting its full clinical application. In this review, we present an in-depth analysis of clinical D-dimer testing, summarizing the existing challenges, the current state of metrology, and progress towards harmonization. We also review the latest advancements in D-dimer detection techniques, which include mass spectrometry and electrochemical and optical immunoassays. By comparing the basic principles, the definition of the measurand, and analytical performance of these methods, we provide an outlook on the potential improvements in D-dimer clinical testing.

Acute phase determinant of post-thrombotic syndrome: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the main long-term complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Several therapies are being evaluated to prevent or to treat PTS. Identifying the patients most likely to benefit from these therapies presents a significant challenge.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to identify risk factors for PTS during the acute phase of DVT.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2000 and January 2021, including randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and observational studies.

RESULTS

Risk factors for PTS such as proximal location of DVT, obesity, chronic venous disease, history of DVT are associated with higher risk of PTS. On the initial ultrasound-Doppler, a high thrombotic burden appears to be a predictor of PTS. Among the evaluated biomarkers, some inflammatory markers such as ICAM-1, MMP-1 and MMP-8 appear to be associated with a higher risk of developing PTS. Coagulation disorders are not associated with risk of developing PTS. Role of endothelial biomarkers in predicting PTS has been poorly explored. Lastly, vitamin K antagonist was associated with a higher risk of developing PTS when compared to direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin.

CONCLUSIONS

Several risk factors during the acute phase of VTE are associated with an increased risk of developing PTS. There is a high-unmet medical need to identify potential biomarkers for early detection of patients at risk of developing PTS after VTE. Inflammatory and endothelial biomarkers should be explored in larger prospective studies to identify populations that could benefit from new therapies.

Unified calibration of D-dimer can improve the uniformity of different detection systems

Background

D-dimer at a low level is important evidence for excluding the onset and progression of thrombosis. It is readily detectable and yields rapid results, although significant variability exists among different detection systems. Our study aims to enhance the consistency across various detection systems.

Methods

Twelve detection systems were included in our study. We sought to address this inconsistency by using various calibrators (two supplied by manufacturers and two comprising pooled human plasma diluted with different diluents) to standardize D-dimer measurements. We categorized the data into three groups according to D-dimer concentration levels: low (≤0.5 mg/L), medium (>0.5 mg/L - <3 mg/L), and high (≥3 mg/L). We then analyzed the data focusing on range, consistency, comparability, negative coincidence rate, and false negative rate.

Results

Calibrating with pooled human plasma led to narrower result ranges in the low and medium groups (P < 0.05). In the low group, consistency improved from weak to strong (ICC 0.4-0.7, P﹤0.05), while it remained excellent in the other groups and overall (ICC﹥0.75, P﹤0.05). The percentage of pairwise comparability increased in both the low and high groups. Additionally, there was an increase in the negative coincidence rate.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that uniform calibration of D-dimer can significantly enhance the consistency of results across different detection systems.

D-dimer diagnostics: can I use any D-dimer assay? Bridging the knowledge-to-action gap

A State of the Art lecture titled "D-dimer Diagnostics: Can I use any D-dimer assay? Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action gap" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023, included in the session on the clinical impact of variability in commonly used coagulation assays. Here, we review the role of D-dimer, primarily in the outpatient diagnosis of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) when combined with clinical decision rules. We focus on the recent large management trials that have studied adjustments of VTE exclusion thresholds for D-dimer based on either prior clinical probability of VTE or patient age, and the resultant benefit of reduced imaging for VTE and improved diagnostic efficiency. In this context, we report on the significant variability between D-dimer results and the multiple D-dimer assays in use worldwide using data from international external quality assurance programs. This variability is particularly high at typical VTE exclusion thresholds. We discuss the potential clinical impact of D-dimer assay substitution on accuracy of diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with VTE. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress and outline future priorities urgently needed to harmonize D-dimer results and reporting that will require international collaboration among multiple stakeholders with an overall goal to close this knowledge-to-action gap.

Are the latest point-of-care D-dimer devices ready for use in general practice? A prospective clinical evaluation of five test systems with a capillary blood feature for suspected venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated clinical performance of five novel point-of-care (POC) D-dimer devices with a capillary finger stick feature for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) in general practice: Exdia TRF Plus (E), AFIAS-1® (A), Standard F200® (S), LumiraDx™ (L) and Hipro AFS/1® (H).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary care patients with a low suspicion of a VTE were asked to consent to (i) draw additional venous blood samples, (ii) perform a capillary POC D-dimer test, (iii) approach their general practitioner afterwards for clinical outcomes. Venous plasma samples were processed on all POC devices and a laboratory-based assay (STA-Liatest®D-Di PLUS assay). Results were compared with clinical outcomes to generate performance characteristics. Capillary and venous blood results were used for a matrix comparison.

RESULTS

Venous plasma samples from 511 participants, of whom 57 had VTE, were used for clinical performance analyses. Areas under Receiving Operating Characteristic Curves ranged from 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.86-0.94) (H) to 0.93 (0.90-0.96) (E). All false-negative rates were below 1.4 % (95 % CI: 0.5 %-3.4 %). Matrix comparison demonstrated correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.11 (95 % CI: -0.15-0.36) (H) to r = 0.94 (0.90-0.97) (A) with concordance percentages ranging from 71.4 % (applying a D-dimer cutoff of 500 ng/mL) (H) to 100 % (applying an age-dependent D-dimer cutoff) (A).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical performance of the POC D-dimer devices for predicting a VTE in low-risk patients was comparable to that of a laboratory-based assay. However, our results indicate that the finger stick feature of certain devices should be further improved. (NL71809.028.19.).

Utility of the Khorana and the new-Vienna CATS prediction scores in cancer patients of the HYPERCAN cohort

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment models (RAMs) are relevant approaches to identify cancer outpatients at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Among the proposed RAMs, the Khorana (KRS) and the new-Vienna CATS risk scores have been externally validated in ambulatory patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To test KRS and new-Vienna CATS scores in 6-month VTE prediction and mortality in a large prospective cohort of metastatic cancer outpatients during chemotherapy.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients with metastatic non-small cell lung, colorectal, gastric, or breast cancers were analyzed (n = 1286). The cumulative incidence of objectively confirmed VTE was estimated with death as a competing risk and multivariate Fine and Gray regression.

RESULTS

Within 6 months, 120 VTE events (9.7%) occurred. The KRS and the new-Vienna CATS scores showed comparable c-stat. Stratification by KRS provided VTE cumulative incidences of 6.2%, 11.4%, and 11.5% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (p = ns), and of 8.5% vs. 11.8% (p = ns) in the low- vs. high-risk group by the single 2-point cut-off value stratification. Using a pre-defined 60-point cut-off by the new-Vienna CATS score, 6.6% and 12.2% cumulative incidences were obtained in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Furthermore, having a KRS ≥2 = or a new-Vienna CATS score >60 points was also an independent risk factor for mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, the 2 RAMs showed a comparable discriminating potential; however, after the application of cut-off values, the new-Vienna CATS score provided statistically significant stratification for VTE. Both RAMs proved to be effective in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality.

Assays to quantify fibrinolysis: strengths and limitations. Communication from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee on fibrinolysis

Fibrinolysis is a series of enzymatic reactions that degrade insoluble fibrin. Plasminogen activators convert the zymogen plasminogen to the active serine protease plasmin, which cleaves and solubilizes crosslinked fibrin clots into fibrin degradation products. The quantity and quality of fibrinolytic enzymes, their respective inhibitors, and clot structure determine overall fibrinolysis. The quantity of protein can be measured by antigen-based assays, and both quantity and quality can be assessed using functional assays. Furthermore, variations of commonly used assays have been reported, which are tailored to address the role(s) of specific fibrinolytic factors and cellular elements (eg, platelets, neutrophils, and red blood cells). Although the concentration and/or activity of a protein can be quantified, how these individual components contribute to the overall fibrinolysis outcome can be challenging to determine. This difficulty is due to temporal changes within and around the thrombi during the clot breakdown, particularly the fibrin matrix structure, and composition. Furthermore, terms such as "fibrinolytic activity/potential," "plasminogen activation," and "plasmin activity" are often used interchangeably despite having different definitions. The purpose of this review is to 1) summarize the assays measuring fibrinolysis activity and potential, 2) facilitate the interpretation of data generated by these assays, and 3) summarize the strengths and limitations of these assays.

Fibrin monomers evaluation during hospitalization for COVID-19 is a predictive marker of in-hospital mortality

Background

Coagulopathy is one of the main triggers of severity and worsening of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) particularly in critically ill patients. D-dimer has been widely used to detect COVID-19 coagulation disorders and has been correlated with outcomes such as disease severity and in-hospital mortality. Involvement of other fibrin degradation products, particularly fibrin monomers (FM), remains an ongoing question.

Methods

We performed a monocentric study of adult patients with COVID-19, who were admitted either in the medical ward (MW) or in the intensive care unit (ICU) and who had FM measurements performed on them during the first wave of COVID-19 outbreak. We analyzed the positivity of FM levels (FM &gt; 7 µg/mL) to assess the ability of FM monitoring during the first days of hospitalization to predict COVID-19 outcomes.

Results

In our cohort, 935 FM measurements were performed in 246 patients during their first 9 days of hospitalization. During patient follow-up, the FM levels were higher in patients admitted directly to the ICU than in those admitted to the MW. Moreover, we observed significantly increased levels of FM in patients when the data were stratified for in-hospital mortality. At hospital admission, only 27 (11%) patients displayed a positive value for FM; this subgroup did not differ from other patients in terms of severity (indicated by ICU referral at admission) or in-hospital mortality. When analyzing FM positivity in the first 9 days of hospitalization, we found that 37% of patients had positive FM at least once during hospitalization and these patients had increased in-hospital mortality (p = 0.001). Thus, we used non-adjusted Kaplan–Meier curves for in-hospital mortality according to FM positivity during hospitalization and we observed a statistically significant difference for in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.25–1.76, p &lt; 0.001). However, we compared the AUC of FM positivity associated with a ratio of D-dimer &gt;70% and found that this combined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was superior to the FM positivity ROC curve alone.

Conclusion

Monitoring of FM positivity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 could be a reliable and helpful tool to predict the worsening condition and mortality of COVID-19.

D-dimer Testing in Pulmonary Embolism with a Focus on Potential Pitfalls: A Narrative Review

D-dimer is a multifaceted biomarker of concomitant activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis, which is routinely used for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) combined with a clinical pretest probability assessment. The intended use of the tests depends largely on the assay used, and local guidance should be applied. D-dimer testing may suffer from diagnostic errors occurring throughout the pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical phases of the testing process. This review aims to provide an overview of D-dimer testing and its value in diagnosing PE and discusses the variables that may impact the quality of its laboratory assessment.

Analytical performance of a new immunoturbidimetric D‐dimer assay and comparison with available assays

Background

The routine D‐dimer quantification to exclude venous thromboembolism has led to the development of many assays, the usefulness of which depends on their reliability and performance.

Objective

We evaluated the analytical performances of the immunoturbidimetric Yumizen G DDi 2 assay (HORIBA Medical, Montpellier, France) performed on the Yumizen G800 analyzer and compared it with other available D‐dimer assays.

Methods

Within‐run and between‐run imprecision were evaluated using low‐ and high‐level quality‐control plasma samples. Interference due to hemolysis, icterus, lipemia, rheumatoid factor (RF), or heterophilic antibodies (human antimouse antibodies [HAMAs]) was evaluated by spiking plasma samples with hemolysate, bilirubin, Intralipid, RF, or HAMAs. The measurements obtained with the different D‐dimer assays were compared using Passing‐Bablok regression analysis and Bland‐Altman plot method, using fresh citrated plasma samples collected from 66 consecutive routine patients with a wide range of D‐dimer concentrations.

Results

Within‐ and between‐run variation coefficients for the Yumizen G DDi 2 assay ranged from 1.7% to 5.8% and from 2.8% to 5.5%, respectively. Hemolysis and icterus did not have any effect up to 10 g/L hemoglobin and 300 mg/L bilirubin. Lipemia seemed to generate an underestimation of D‐dimer concentration when the Intralipid concentration was >5 g/L. RF and HAMAs did not have any effect. The Passing‐Bablok and Bland‐Altman analyses showed small differences with other available D‐dimer assays, which were more pronounced with increasing values.

Conclusions

Its analytical performances and main technical features indicate that the new Yumizen G DDi 2 assay is suitable for the rapid quantification of D‐dimer in clinical hemostasis laboratories.