Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

The added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) in the diagnostic workup of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unclear. Currently, diagnosis of thrombotic APS (TAPS) and obstetric APS (OAPS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM, or anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in OAPS.

METHODS

aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 653 patients (OAPS, TAPS, and controls). In-house aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, titers and prevalence were compared between OAPS, TAPS, and controls and type of pregnancy morbidity. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated.

RESULTS

In OAPS, aPS/PT IgG and IgM showed an OR of 4.32 (95% CI, 2.54-7.36) and 3.37 (95% CI, 1.93-5.89), respectively, but the association was not independent of LAC. Prevalence and titers of aPS/PT IgG and IgM were lower in OAPS than in patients with TAPS. aPS/PT were more prevalent and showed higher titers in patients with late pregnancy loss than in patients with early pregnancy loss with a positivity of 86.4% and 39.3%, respectively. Higher aPS/PT titers did not increase the likelihood of having OAPS.

CONCLUSION

The added value of aPS/PT testing in the current diagnostic workup of OAPS seems limited compared with LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI. aPS/PT might be useful in specific subsets of patients with OAPS. However, future multicentric studies are needed to elucidate the risk of less frequent and most severe obstetrical manifestations.

The methods for removal of direct oral anticoagulants and heparins to improve the monitoring of hemostasis: a narrative literature review

The assessment of hemostasis is necessary to make suitable decisions on the management of patients with thrombotic disorders. In some clinical situations, for example, during thrombophilia screening, the presence of anticoagulants in sample makes diagnosis impossible. Various elimination methods may overcome anticoagulant interference. DOAC-Stop, DOAC-Remove and DOAC Filter are available methods to remove direct oral anticoagulants in diagnostic tests, although there are still reports on their incomplete efficacy in several assays. The new antidotes for direct oral anticoagulants - idarucizumab and andexanet alfa - could be potentially useful, but have their drawbacks. The necessity to remove heparins is also arising as heparin contamination from central venous catheter or therapy with heparin disturbs the appropriate hemostasis assessment. Heparinase and polybrene are already present in commercial reagents but a fully-effective neutralizer is still a challenge for researchers, thus promising candidates remain in the research phase.

Recent advances in laboratory hematology reflected by a decade of CCLM publications

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) we present a review of recent developments in the discipline of laboratory hematology as these are reflected by papers published in CCLM in the period 2012–2022. Since data on CCLM publications from 1963 to 2012 are also available, we were able to make a comparison between the two periods. This interestingly revealed that the share of laboratory hematology papers has steadily increased and reached now 16% of all papers published in CCLM. It also became evident that blood coagulation and fibrinolysis, erythrocytes, platelets and instrument and method evaluation constituted the ‘hottest’ topics with regard to number of publications. Some traditional, characteristic CCLM categories like reference intervals, standardization and harmonization, were more stable and probably will remain so in the future. With the advent of important newer topics, like new coagulation assays and drugs and cell population data generated by hematology analyzers, laboratory hematology is anticipated to remain a significant discipline in CCLM publications.

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.

Lupus anticoagulant test persistence over time and its associations with future thrombotic events

Data on lupus anticoagulant (LA) test stability in patients persistently positive for LA are limited and its implications on clinical outcomes are lacking. We investigated the rate and predictors of a negative LA test and whether experiencing a negative test affected a patient's risk of future thrombotic events or death in a prospective observational study of persistently LA positive patients. We followed 164 patients (84% women) for a median of 9.2 years and a total of 1,438 follow-up visits. During the observation period, 50 thrombotic events (23 arterial and 27 venous events) occurred and 24 patients died. Forty-six of the patients had at least one negative LA test during the observation period, corresponding to a 10-year cumulative incidence of a negative LA test of 28% (95%CI: 20-35). The majority of patients with available follow-up after a negative LA test (n=41) had at least one subsequent positive test for LA (n=28/41, 68%). Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment at baseline was associated with a negative LA test during follow up. Using a multistate time-to-event model with multivariable adjustment, a negative LA test had no impact on a patient's prospective risk of thrombosis or mortality. We conclude that a negative LA test during observation cannot be used clinically to stratify a patient's risk for future events.

International multicenter, multiplatform study to validate Taipan snake venom time as a lupus anticoagulant screening test with ecarin time as the confirmatory test: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays are compromised in anticoagulated patients, and existing strategies to overcome the interferences have limitations. The prothrombin-activating Taipan snake venom time (TSVT) screening test and ecarin time (ET) confirmatory test are innately insensitive to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (DFXaI).

OBJECTIVES

Validate standardized TSVT/ET reagents for LA detection, in a multicenter, multiplatform study.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Six centers from four countries analyzed samples with TSVT/ET from 81 nonanticoagulated patients with LA, patients with established antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and proven persistent LA who were either not anticoagulated (n = 120) or were anticoagulated with VKAs (n = 180) or DFXaIs (n = 71). Additionally, 339 nonanticoagulated LA-negative patients, and 575 anticoagulated non-APS patients (172 VKA, 403 DFXaI) were tested. Anticoagulant spiking experiments were performed and 112 samples containing potential interferences (i.e., direct thrombin inhibitors) were tested. Results were evaluated against locally derived cutoffs. Imprecision was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cutoffs were remarkably similar despite use of different analyzers and donor populations. Cutoffs for TSVT ratio, ET ratio, percent correction, and normalized TSVT ratio/ET ratio ranged between 1.08 and 1.10, 1.09 and 1.12, 9.3% and 14.8%, and 1.10 and 1.15, respectively. Coefficients of variation for TSVT and ET ratios were ≤5.0%. TSVT/ET exhibited sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 78.2%/95.0%/86.3%/91.5%, respectively, with established APS as the LA-positive population, and 86.9%/95.0%/76.8%/97.4%, respectively, with triple-positive APS. Interference was seen with direct thrombin inhibitors, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins, but not VKAs or DFXaIs.

CONCLUSIONS

TSVT/ET are validated for LA detection in nonanticoagulated patients and those on VKAs or DFXaIs.

Indication and outcome of lupus anticoagulant and antiphospholipid antibodies testing in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Lupus anticoagulans (LACs) and aPLs, both further summarized as aPL, are frequently assessed in routine daily clinical practice in diagnostic workups for suspected autoimmune diseases or to test for underlying risk factors in patients with thrombosis or obstetric complications. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of aPL positivity in patients with an indication for aPL testing in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-centre study, indication for aPL testing, aPL test results and clinical data were collected for patients tested between June 2015 and April 2018.

RESULTS

During the study period, 16 847 single aPL tests were performed in 2139 patients. In 212 patients one or more positive aPL test was found, confirmed in 43.9% with a second positive test. Indications for aPL testing were diagnostic workup/follow-up of autoimmune diseases (33.6%), thrombosis (21.4%) and obstetric complications (28%). Seventy-four patients (3.5% of all patients) fulfilled the criteria of APS, of whom 51% were newly diagnosed. Second positive aPL titres and titres of APS patients were significantly higher compared with positive aPL titres at the first measurement (P < 0.05). Patients with indications of arterial thrombosis and diagnostic workup/follow-up of autoimmune diseases had significantly higher levels of aCL IgG and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) IgG compared with patients with other indications.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of one or more positive aPL test was 9.9% and APS was diagnosed in 3.5% of the patients. Patients with arterial thrombosis had significantly higher anti-β2GPI IgG and aCL IgG, which should be confirmed in future studies.

2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

DOAC-Stop in lupus anticoagulant testing: Direct oral anticoagulant interference removed in most samples

BACKGROUND

The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is a convenient therapeutic option for patients at risk of thrombosis. DOACs interfere with clot-based testing for the identification of lupus anticoagulant antibodies (LACs) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), a common cause of acquired thrombotic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a commercially available reagent DOAC-Stop for the removal of DOAC interference encountered in LAC testing.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We collected a cohort of 73 test samples from patients on DOAC therapy identified at a large institutional coagulation laboratory from March to December 2019, along with samples from 40 LAC positive and negative control patients not on therapy. Samples were treated with DOAC-Stop and tested for anti-Xa activity and thrombin time for the removal of apixaban, rivaroxaban, argatroban, and dabigatran activity from patient samples. Treated and untreated samples were tested using the activated partial thromboplastin time, silica clotting time, and dilute Russell's viper venom time to evaluate the reliability and utility of DOAC-Stop.

RESULTS

DOAC-Stop markedly reduced DOAC interference from test samples (P < .05). DOAC-Stop had no effect on LAC testing in the absence of DOAC therapy, permitting the identification of all LAC positive and negative controls. DOAC-Stop removed false positives and false negatives resulting from DOAC interference and allows the identification of patients meeting criteria for the diagnosis of APS by LAC testing, as well as the detection of patients on rivaroxaban who are triple positive for APS.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Stop is an effective adjunct for the clinical laboratory faced with DOAC interference in LAC testing.

Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria if persistently present. Progress has been made on the standardization of tests as guidelines on LAC testing and immunological assays for aCL and aβ2GPI are published. However, LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Noncriteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. But, aDI and aPS/PT are not included in the current diagnostic criteria and testing in daily practice is not recommended as these antibodies have no added value in the diagnosis of APS. This review will focus on the technical aspects of the laboratory methods, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

Comprehensive review of the impact of direct oral anticoagulants on thrombophilia diagnostic tests: Practical recommendations for the laboratory

There is a laboratory and clinical need to know the impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on diagnostic tests to avoid misinterpretation of results. Although the regulatory labelling documents provide some information about the influences of each DOAC on diagnostic tests, these are usually limited to some of the most common tests and no head to head comparison is available. In this paper, we report the impact of DOACs on several thrombophilia tests, including assessment of antithrombin, protein S and protein C activity assays, detection of activated protein C resistance and assays used for lupus anticoagulant. Results are compared and discussed with data obtained from literature. The final goal of this comprehensive review is to provide practical recommendations for laboratories to avoid misdiagnosis due to oral direct factor Xa (FXa) or IIa (FIIa) inhibitors. Overall, oral direct FXa (apixaban, betrixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) and FIIa (dabigatran) antagonists may affect clot-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests resulting in false-positive or false-negative results. An effect on FIIa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests is observed with dabigatran but not with anti-FXa DOACs and conversely for FXa-based thrombophilia diagnostic tests. No impact was observed with antigenic/chromogenic methods for the assessment of protein S and C activity. In conclusion, interpretation of thrombophilia diagnostic tests results should be done with caution in patients on DOACs. The use of a device/chemical compound able to remove or antagonize the effect of DOACs or the development of new diagnostic tests insensitive to DOACs should be considered to minimize the risk of false results.

Unveiling the complex effects of direct oral anticoagulants on dilute Russell's viper venom time assays

INTRODUCTION

Dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) assays can be affected by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which may cause false-positive results. However, there are conflicting results indicating significant differences between different reagents and DOACs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of DOACs on dRVVT assays.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Samples were prepared by adding DOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) to pooled normal plasma in the concentration range 0 to 800 µg/L. Six integrated dRVVT reagents were used, all composed of a screen assay (low phospholipid content) and a confirm assay (high phospholipid content). The screen/confirm dRVVT results were expressed as normalized ratios. To further evaluate the observed differences between tests and DOACs, addition of synthetic phospholipids was used.

RESULTS

The dRVVT ratios increased dose dependently for all DOACs, with four of the six tests and the DOAC rivaroxaban having the greatest effect. With one test, the ratios were almost unaffected with increasing DOAC concentration, whereas another test revealed a negative dose dependency for all DOACs. Variable DOAC effects can be explained by different effects on dRVVT screen and confirm clotting time. Adding synthetic phospholipids to samples containing rivaroxaban resulted in greatly reduced screen clotting times and thereby lower calculated dRVVT ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great variability in the dRVVT test result with different DOACs. The dRVVT ratios are unaffected for some reagents and this can be explained by an equal dose-dependent effect on both screen and confirm assays. The phospholipid type and content of the different reagents may contribute to the observed differences.

Lupus anticoagulant detection in anticoagulated patients. Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

BACKGROUND

The laboratory detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in anticoagulated patients represents a challenge and there is no consensus on the types of assays/procedures to be adopted.

OBJECTIVES

This communication of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) aims to give guidance on the procedures to be adopted.

METHODS

Members of the ISTH-SSC on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies reviewed the literature to search for evidence on the most appropriate assays/procedures to be adopted.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants are able to interfere with the tests used for LA detection, giving rise to occasional false-positive or false-negative LA. Some commercial tests include in their composition heparin-neutralizers able to quench unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin up to 1.0 U/mL. LA tests are less affected by low molecular weight heparin, but caution is needed in the interpretation of results. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) may affect LA detection. Dilution of test plasma into pooled normal plasma is not a reliable solution as false-negative or false-positive LA may occur. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) affect LA detection. Hence, it is not recommended to attempt LA detection in those patients. The use of DOAC adsorbents is a promising solution and should be further investigated on LA-positive and LA-negative patient populations. Taipan/Ecarin tests may be a solution for VKAs and anti-FXa DOACs, but independent evidence on their value and standardized kits is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

LA detection during anticoagulation remains a challenge, especially for VKAs. DOAC removal by in vitro addition to plasma of appropriate absorbents is promising.

How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on the laboratory tests necessary for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). For the interpretation of the results of the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), understanding of all pitfalls and interferences is necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made on the standardization of aPL tests and current guidelines for detection of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) are useful tools. LAC measurement remains a complex procedure with many pitfalls and interference by anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show inter-assay differences. Measuring LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI allows making antibody profiles that help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients, but are not included in the current diagnostic criteria as no added value in the diagnosis of APS has been illustrated so far. The laboratory diagnosis of APS remains challenging. LAC, aCL, aβ2GPI IgG, and IgM should be performed to increase diagnostic efficacy, with an integrated interpretation of all results and an interpretative comment. A close interaction between clinical pathologists and clinicians is mandatory.

Impact of different preanalytical conditions on results of lupus anticoagulant tests

INTRODUCTION

The currently recommended preanalytical conditions for lupus anticoagulant (LA) analysis require analyzing samples in fresh or freshly frozen platelet-poor plasma. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether alternative and less cumbersome preanalytical procedures for LA testing give significantly different results compared to recommended conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Citrated blood samples were drawn from 29 study participants, 15 with negative and 14 with positive LA results. The samples were processed according to the ISTH guideline for LA testing and compared to several alternative preanalytical conditions. Measurements were performed using the dilute Russell's viper venom time (DRVVT) and silica clotting time (SCT), both screen and confirm, on a STA-R Evolution analyzer. Stability criteria were based upon biological variation.

RESULTS

All DRVVT tests (normalized screen, confirm, and screen/confirm ratio) met the stability criteria for all the preanalytical conditions. The SCT tests (normalized screen, confirm, and screen/confirm ratio) met the stability criteria only when treated according to the ISTH guideline, except for SCT normalized screen/confirm ratio which also met the stability criteria for double-centrifuged aliquoted plasma stored in room temperature for 24 hours and then analyzed "fresh" or after being frozen. One warfarin-treated patient was reclassified from positive to negative for DRVVT after the preanalytical modifications, while 2 of 29 participants became falsely positive for 2 of 8 conditions for SCT.

CONCLUSIONS

The DRVVT assays met the criteria for stability for all preanalytical conditions tested, while the SCT assays should be interpreted with caution if the preanalytical guidelines from ISTH are not followed.

The effect of DOAC-Stop on lupus anticoagulant testing in plasma samples of venous thromboembolism patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) cause false positive lupus anticoagulant (LA) results. We assessed the impact of DOAC-Stop, reversing in vitro effects of DOACs, on LA testing in anticoagulated patients.

Methods

We assessed 75 venous thromboembolism patients aged 44.5±14.6 years. Blood samples were collected 2–28 h since intake of DOACs, including 50 patients on rivaroxaban, 20 on dabigatran and five on apixaban. LA testing was performed at baseline and after DOAC-Stop treatment. Positive LA was defined as the normalized (patient/standard plasma clotting time) LA screening and screening (LA1)/confirmation (LA2) ratios exceeding 1.2.

Results

LA diluted Russell’s viper venom time (dRVVT) normalized screening test revealed abnormal results in 73 (97.3%) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)-LA in 49 (65.3%) patients. In six (8%) patients, antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) was diagnosed. dRVVT LA1/LA2 was abnormal in 35 (50.7%) patients taking DOACs. The APTT ratio was normal in all studied subjects. DOAC-Stop completely removed dabigatran and reduced by 98% rivaroxaban and by 92.3% apixaban concentrations (all p<0.05). After DOAC-Stop screening dRVVT remained prolonged in 34 (49.3%) patients (p<0.001), while dRVVT LA1/LA2 was abnormal in six (8.7%) subjects, with no association with DOAC concentrations at baseline and after DOAC-Stop. The APTT-LA screening test remained prolonged in five (7.2%) patients, while the APTT LA1/LA2 ratio was normal in those subjects. DOAC-Stop did not influence LA testing in APS patients.

Conclusions

Application of DOAC-Stop effectively reduced plasma DOAC concentrations leading to appropriate dRVVT results in up to 97% of VTE patients.

Evaluation of global laboratory methods and establishing on-therapy ranges for monitoring apixaban and rivaroxaban: Experience at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Apixaban and rivaroxaban are approved for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The aim of this study was to find appropriate methods of monitoring the anticoagulant effects of are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and establish on-therapy ranges using conventional tests.

METHODS

A total of 184 samples were collected from 91 patients receiving DOACs. Concentrations of apixaban and rivaroxaban in plasma were accessed by an anti-factor Xa chromogenic assay. PT, APTT, antithrombin, D-dimer, dRVVT screen/confirm, FDP, and fibrinogen levels were measured. On-therapy ranges were calculated by substituting previously reported trough plasma concentrations of DOACs.

RESULTS

Anti-factor Xa chromogenic assay-based DOACs levels were 26.0-279.5 (115.9 ± 56.5) ng/mL for apixaban at 2.5 mg BID, 19.9-565.1 (205.3 ± 162.4) ng/mL for apixaban at 5 mg BID, 2.3-395.3 (205.3 ± 162.4) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 15 mg OD, 3.6-494.8 (119.6 ± 95.1) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 20 mg OD, and 9.6-431.4 (140.8 ± 113.6) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 15 mg BID. PT (%), antithrombin, and dRVVT confirm tests showed good correlation with plasma apixaban levels. Plasma rivaroxaban concentrations were correlated well with PT (sec), PT (%),and dRVVT confirm results. On-therapy ranges established for dRVVT confirm test by linear regression were as follows: 1.32-1.52 for apixaban 2.5 mg BID, 1.12-1.75 for apixaban 5 mg BID, 1.11-1.78 for rivaroxaban 15 mg OD, 1.09-1.64 for rivaroxaban 20 mg OD, and 1.22-1.81 for rivaroxaban 20 mg BID.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban concentrations were well correlated with PT (%), antithrombin, and dRVVT confirm test. Rivaroxaban concentrations showed good correlation with PT (sec), PT (%), and dRVVT confirm test.

Paired APTTs of low and high lupus anticoagulant sensitivity permit distinction from other abnormalities and achieve good lupus anticoagulant detection rates in conjunction with dRVVT

INTRODUCTION

A prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) may be indicative of a specific or multiple factor deficiency, therapeutic anticoagulation, presence of a nonspecific factor inhibitor, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). Recently, pairing of the LA-sensitive APTT and standard APTT reagents, Cephen LS and Cephen, respectively, has been shown to be effective in LA detection. The present study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of this reagent pair for discriminating between causes of APTT elevation and the detection of LA in conjunction with dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT).

METHODS

Plasma samples from 50 normal and 105 non-anticoagulated LA-positive patients in routine dRVVT and/or dilute APTT (dAPTT) via the percent correction formula were employed. Cephen LS/Cephen and dRVVT reagents LA1/LA2 were used to screen/confirm, respectively. Thirty-four symptomatic LA-negative, 25 warfarinised non-antiphospholipid syndrome, 6 coagulation inhibitors, 17 samples with hereditary elevated APTT, and 24 FVIII/IX/XI/XII and 17 FII/V/X artificial single deficiency plasmas were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-three samples out of 105 (31%) were LA-positive in Cephen LS/Cephen. The total percent positivity in Cephen LS/Cephen and LA1/LA2 pairs was 89.1% against samples with the routine dRVVT/dAPTT double positive. The percent corrections of Cephen LS/Cephen in the routine dAPTT/dRVVT positive group were significantly higher than those in all other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The percent correction of the APTT reagent pair showed higher values in LA-positive samples. The combination will be useful with respect to differentiating LA from other abnormal samples and is effective in LA detection when paired with dRVVT.

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.

Anti-phospholipid syndrome: Current opinion on mechanisms involved, laboratory characterization and diagnostic aspects

Anti-phospholipid syndrome is a complex and severe clinical situation, associated with symptoms such as recurrent thrombosis, arterial or venous, at any site, pregnancy loss, and other related syndromes. These clinical burdens, are highly variable from patient to patient, and are associated with biological abnormalities, such as the presence of the Lupus Anticoagulant or phospholipid dependent antibodies, confirmed on two occasions at least 12 weeks apart. From the diagnosis standpoint, both, functional (clotting) or immunological assays, are difficult to standardize and to optimize, due to the absence of reference material, or a characteristic clinical group, and international reference preparations. Large cohort studies are necessary for defining the usefulness of each assay, in terms of specificity, sensitivity, accuracy and for following-up the disease evolution. Clotting assays are based on Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) and diluted Russell Viper Venom Time (dRVVT), performed at low and high phospholipid concentration, or on 1:1 mixtures of tested sample and a normal plasma pool. They allow evaluation of the paradoxal effects of LAs, which are pro-thrombotic in vivo, and anticoagulant in vivo. Use of synthetic phospholipids improves assay specificities and sensitivities, especially in patients treated with anticoagulants. Immunoassays can also be used for testing phospholipid dependent antibodies, first identified and measured as anti-cardiolipin antibodies, but now characterized as targeted to phospholipid cofactor proteins: mainly β2GP1 (which exposes cryptic epitopes upon binding to phospholipids), and in some cases prothrombin, and more rarely Protein S, Factor XIII, Protein Z or Annexin V. Use of optimized assays designed with well-characterized anionic phospholipids, then complexed with highly purified phospholipid cofactor protein (mainly β2GP1), offers a better link between reactivity and clinical associations, than the former assays which were empirically designed with cardiolipin. Standardization also remains complicated due to the absence of international standards and harmonized quantitation units. Validation on large cohorts of negative and positive patients remains the key approach for defining assay performance and clinical usefulness. Laboratory practice for all these methods is now greatly facilitated thanks to the use of automated instruments and dedicated software. Along with clinical criteria, laboratory assays are of great usefulness for identification and confirmation of the anti-phospholipid syndrome and they allow disease follow-up when appropriate patient management is in place.

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.