Laboratory Diagnosis of Activated Protein C Resistance and Factor V Leiden

The factor V Leiden (FVL) polymorphism is known as the most common inherited risk factor for venous thrombosis. In turn, FVL is the leading cause of an activated protein C resistance (APCR) phenotype, in which the addition of exogenous activated protein C to plasma does not result in the expected anticoagulant effect. In the routine laboratory approach to the formal diagnosis of FVL, an initial positive screening plasma-based method for APCR is often performed, and only if needed, this is followed by a confirmatory DNA-based assay for FVL. Multiple methods with accepted sensitivity and specificity for determining an APCR/FVL phenotype are commonly categorized into two separate groups: (1) screening plasma-based assays, including qualitative functional clot-based assays, for APCR, and (2) confirmatory DNA-based molecular assays, entailing several tests and platforms, including polymerase chain reaction-based and non-PCR-based techniques, for FVL. This review will describe the methodological aspects of each laboratory test and prepare suggestions on the indication of APCR and FVL testing and method selection.

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.

Lupus anticoagulant testing during anticoagulation, including direct oral anticoagulants

Background

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are one laboratory criterion for classification of antiphospholipid syndrome, with presence of vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy/fetal morbidity being clinical criteria. The presence of LA is detected (or excluded) by laboratory testing, with the activated partial thromboplastin time and dilute Russell's viper venom time the most commonly used tests. Given the association of thrombosis with LA, it is no surprise that anticoagulants are used to treat or manage such patients.

Objectives

To review and discuss interferences from anticoagulants on LA testing, and strategies to mitigate these.

Methods

This narrative review assessed interference from commonly used anticoagulants, focusing on LA testing while on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including use of DOAC neutralizers.

Results

The classical anticoagulants comprise vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin, and heparins, predominantly unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). DOACs have emerged with favorable efficacy and safety. These comprise two classes: direct anti‐thrombin (anti‐IIa; dabigatran) or direct anti‐Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) agents. All anticoagulants affect clotting assays, although there are differences in effects according to anticoagulant and assay. Nevertheless, because of such interferences, anticoagulants can lead to false‐negative or false‐positive LA findings. Several strategies can mitigate such interferences, including avoidance of testing while patients are on such anticoagulants, temporarily switching to an anticoagulant (i.e., LMWH) with less assay interference, testing for LA at nadir levels of anticoagulants, and/or use of anticoagulant neutralizers.

Conclusion

Whilst the best approach is to avoid LA testing on patients taking anticoagulants; if unavoidable, testing may be facilitated by various mitigating strategies.

Performance Characteristics of DOAC-Remove for Neutralization of the Effects of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban in Lupus Anticoagulant Assays

OBJECTIVES

This study established the performance characteristics of DOAC-Remove for neutralization of the effects of rivaroxaban and apixaban in lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing.

METHODS

Normal donor, LAC control, and patient samples were spiked with rivaroxaban or apixaban to simulate their effects on the dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and dilute prothrombin time (dPT). Anti-Xa activity was measured after spiking and after DOAC-Remove neutralization. Accuracy, complex precision, and reference interval verification were evaluated.

RESULTS

DOAC-Remove neutralized rivaroxaban and apixaban concentrations as high as 415 ng/mL and 333 ng/mL, respectively. Percentage positive and negative agreement between the baseline and postneutralization interpretations were 75% or higher for the dRVVT and APTT methods but not for the dPT method. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were 10% or less for all assays except the Staclot-LA delta, which had a standard deviation of 2.5 seconds or CV of 25% or less depending on the level. The laboratory's reference intervals were verified for the dRVVT and APTT assays after DOAC-Remove treatment but not for the dPT assays.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Remove appears to have acceptable performance characteristics for neutralizing the effects of rivaroxaban and apixaban in the dRVVT and APTT methods but not in the dPT method.

Thrombophilia testing in the era of direct oral anticoagulants

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly recognised in primary and secondary care practice. The arrival of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has made the management of VTE easier and more convenient. Some patients established on DOACs may need screening for underlying thrombophilias as certain thrombophilic conditions are known to confer a higher thrombosis risk, although the guidelines for when and how to test for a thrombophilia, especially in a patient taking a DOAC, are unclear. This literature review aims to examine when thrombophilia screening should take place in a patient already taking a DOAC, the effect of DOACs on thrombophilia tests, and analyse whether DOACs are safe and effective in both inherited and acquired thrombophilias.

Laboratory testing for activated protein C resistance: rivaroxaban induced interference and a comparative evaluation of andexanet alfa and DOAC Stop to neutralise interference

Background Investigation of hemostasis is problematic when patients are on anticoagulant therapy. Rivaroxaban especially causes substantial interference, extending many clot-based tests, thereby leading to false positive or negative events. In particular, rivaroxaban affects some assays for activated protein C resistance (APCR). Methods We assessed, in an international setting, cross laboratory (n = 31) testing using four samples to evaluate rivaroxaban induced interference in APCR testing, and whether this interference could be neutralised. The samples comprised: (A) pool of normal plasma (APCR-negative control); (B) this normal pool spiked with rivaroxaban (200 ng/mL) to create rivaroxaban-induced interference (potential 'false' positive APCR event sample); (C) the rivaroxaban sample subsequently treated with a commercial direct oral anticoagulant 'DOAC-neutraliser' (DOAC Stop), or (D) treated with andexanet alfa (200 μg/mL). Testing was performed blind to sample type. Results The rivaroxaban-spiked sample generated false positive APCR results for some, but unexpectedly not most APCR-tests. The sample treated with DOAC Stop evidenced a correction in the rivaroxaban-affected APCR assays, and did not otherwise adversely affect the rivaroxaban 'unaffected' APCR assays. The andexanet alfa-treated sample did not evidence correction of the false positive APCR, and instead unexpectedly exacerbated false positive APCR status with many tests. Conclusions DOAC Stop was able to neutralise any APCR interference induced by rivaroxaban. In contrast, andexanet alfa did not negate such interference, and instead unexpectedly created more false-positive APCR events.

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.

The Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulants on Antithrombin Activity Testing Is Abolished by DOAC-Stop in Venous Thromboembolism Patients

CONTEXT.—

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may cause false negative results of antithrombin (AT) deficiency screening.

OBJECTIVE.—

To evaluate the impact of DOAC-Stop, an agent reversing in vitro effects of DOACs, on AT testing in anticoagulated patients.

DESIGN.—

We assessed 130 venous thromboembolism patients aged 46.7 ± 13.5 years. Blood samples were collected 2 to 27 hours after DOAC intake from 49 patients on rivaroxaban, 54 on apixaban, and 27 on dabigatran. Antithrombin activity was assessed using the activated factor X (FXa)-based and the activated factor II (FIIa)-based method twice, before and after DOAC-Stop treatment, together with plasma DOAC levels using coagulometric assays.

RESULTS.—

The use of DOAC-Stop did not influence AT activity measured using the FIIa-based assay, whereas there was a marked decrease in AT activity determined using the FXa-based assay (ΔAT = 16.9%; 95% CI, 12.9%-19.1%). The AT-FIIa assay revealed decreased AT level (<79%) in all 10 (7.7%) genetically confirmed AT-deficient patients treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban (n = 5 each), whereas the AT-FXa assay showed decreased AT activity (<83%) in 2 subjects on rivaroxaban and 1 on apixaban with low plasma DOAC concentrations (<90 ng/mL). After DOAC-Stop median AT-FXa activity lowered from 83.5% (interquartile range, 66%-143%) to 65.5% (interquartile range, 57%-75%; P = .005; ΔAT = 18%) in AT-deficient patients, without any false negative results. The ΔAT in the FXa-based assay correlated with rivaroxaban and apixaban concentrations in the AT-deficient patients (r = 0.99, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS.—

Application of DOAC-Stop enables reliable evaluation of AT deficiency screening in patients taking rivaroxaban or apixaban and tested using the FXa-based method.

Limitations of a calibrated, quantitative APC-R assay under routine conditions

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the Hemoclot Quanti. V-L assay in various clinical conditions.

METHODS

We compared the Hemoclot Quanti.V-L assay with DNA testing and with the Pefakit assay in 60 normal (no mutation) vs carriers of the factor V (FV) Leiden mutation (56 heterozygous and three homozygous). We further investigated the interference of lupus anticoagulant on test results in normal and heterozygous individuals and of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) at trough and peak levels. Additionally, DOAC-Remove was tested in samples containing DOACs at peak levels. We further evaluated the influence of FV deficiency on this quantitative assay.

RESULTS

There was a 100% agreement between the Quant. V-L assay and DNA testing in 60 normal individuals. However, 1.85% of heterozygous and 33% of homozygous samples were falsely classified with the quantitative assay, and no misclassification was observed with the Pefakit assay. Lupus anticoagulant did not influence the test results of the quantitative assay. DOACs also interfered with test results in heterozygous patients, but this effect was prevented with the DOAC-Remove procedure. Even mild FV deficiency affected the test results of the quantitative assay in heterozygous patients leading either to misclassification or the need for subsequent PCR testing.

CONCLUSION

The quantitative FV-L assay has several limitations, especially FV deficiency and the presence of DOACs have to be ruled out before running this quantitative assay.