Antibodies against TFPI and protein C are associated with a severe thrombotic phenotype in patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) antibodies, which have been reported in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), may impair TFPI activity and contribute to hypercoagulability, but their role in APS and in thrombosis remains undefined. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: We assessed the presence and avidity of TFPI IgG antibodies, associations with protein C IgG antibodies and associations with clinical disease severity, in 50 patients with thrombotic APS and 50 thrombotic control patients, on long term anticoagulation with warfarin. RESULTS: Thrombotic APS patients had a significantly higher prevalence of TFPI IgG antibodies (40%; 20/50) compared to thrombotic controls (18%; 9/50). TFPI antibodies were predominantly high avidity in APS (50%, 10/20 of positive patients) and strongly associated with a severe thrombotic phenotype (venous and arterial thromboembolism or recurrent thromboembolic episodes despite therapeutic anticoagulation) (odds ratio (OR): 12.0, 95%CI: 2.2-66.1, p = 0.004), while thrombotic control patients mainly showed low avidity antibodies (78%, 7/9 of positive patients). Coexistence of TFPI and protein C IgG antibodies, regardless of their avidity, was strongly associated with a more severe thrombotic phenotype in APS patients (OR: 20.2, 95%CI: 2.0-47.0, p < 0.0001) and also in thrombotic controls (OR: 75.0, 95%CI 1.2-195, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Coexistent TFPI and protein C IgG antibodies, irrespective of their avidity, may be a useful marker for a severe thrombotic phenotype in thrombotic patients. This suggests a possibly pathophysiological relationship between the two antibodies, predisposing to thrombosis with a possibly more general role in the development of thrombotic complications.

Should we abandon the APTT for monitoring unfractionated heparin?

INTRODUCTION: The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) is commonly used to monitor unfractionated heparin (UFH) but may not accurately measure the amount of heparin present. The anti-Xa assay is less susceptible to confounding factors and may be a better assay for this purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The validity of the APTT for monitoring UFH was assessed by comparing with an anti-Xa assay on 3543 samples from 475 patients (infants [n=165], children 1-15years [n=60] and adults [n=250]) receiving treatment dose UFH. RESULTS: Overall concordance was poor. The highest concordance (66%; 168/254) was seen in children. Concordance (51.8%) or discordance (48.4%) was almost equal in adult patients. Among adult patients whose anti-Xa level was within 0.3-0.7IU/mL, only 38% had an APTT in the therapeutic range whilst 56% were below and 6% were above therapeutic range. Children and adult patients with anti-Xa of 0.3-0.7IU/mL but sub- therapeutic APTT had significantly higher fibrinogen levels compared to those with therapeutic or supra-therapeutic APTT. CONCLUSIONS: When the anti-Xa level was 0.3-0.7IU/mL, the majority of samples from infants demonstrated a supra-therapeutic APTT, whilst adults tended to have a sub-therapeutic APTT. This may lead to under anticoagulation in infants or over anticoagulation in adults with risk of bleeding if APTT is used to monitor UFH. These results further strengthen existing evidence of the limitation of APTT in monitoring UFH. Discordance of APTT and anti-Xa level in adults and children may be due to elevation of fibrinogen level.

Rivaroxaban limits complement activation compared with warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome patients with venous thromboembolism.

Essentials Complement activation has a pathogenic role in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Coagulation proteases such as factor Xa can activate complement proteins. Complement activation markers were elevated in anticoagulated thrombotic APS patients. Complement activation decreased in APS patients switching from warfarin to rivaroxaban. SUMMARY: Background Complement activation may play a major role in the pathogenesis of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Coagulation proteases such as factor Xa can activate complement proteins. Aims To establish whether rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, limits complement activation compared with warfarin in APS patients with previous venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods A total of 111 APS patients with previous VTE, on warfarin target INR 2.5, had blood samples taken at baseline and at day 42 after randomization in the RAPS (Rivaroxaban in Antiphospholipid Syndrome) trial. Fifty-six patients remained on warfarin and 55 switched to rivaroxaban. Fifty-five normal controls (NC) were also studied. Markers of complement activation (C3a, C5a, terminal complement complex [SC5b-9] and Bb fragment) were assessed. Results APS patients had significantly higher complement activation markers compared with NC at both time-points irrespective of the anticoagulant. There were no differences between the two patient groups at baseline, or patients remaining on warfarin at day 42. In 55 patients randomized to rivaroxaban, C3a, C5a and SC5b-9 were lower at day 42 (median (ng mL-1 ) [confidence interval] 64 [29-125] vs. 83 [35-147], 9 [2-15] vs. 12 [4-18] and 171 [56-245] vs. 201 [66-350], respectively) but levels of Bb fragment were unchanged. There were no correlations between rivaroxaban levels and complement activation markers. Conclusions APS patients with previous VTE on warfarin exhibit increased complement activation, which is likely to occur via the classical pathway and is decreased by rivaroxaban administration. Rivaroxaban may therefore potentially provide an additional benefit to its anticoagulant effect in this patient group by limiting complement activation.

Choosing and using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in haemophilia.

The management of pain and inflammation in haemophilic arthropathy is challenging due to the lack of anti-inflammatory analgesic agents perfectly suitable for this population. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of arthritis due to their analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects. Their use in persons with haemophilia (PWH), however, is limited due to increased risk of bleeding mainly from the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective NSAIDs which have comparable analgesic effect to traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) but with less UGI bleeding have been considered to be a suitable option for treatment of haemophilic arthropathy. COX-2 inhibitors, however, have an increased in the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although the atherosclerotic burden in PWH is similar to that in the general population, the risk of CV-related deaths is lower. PWH have a higher risk of GI bleeding and lower risk of thrombotic disease compared to general population. Therefore, when PWH require anti-inflammatory/analgesic agents, it seems reasonable to use lowest dose of COX-2 inhibitors for the shortest period together with a proton pump inhibitor. Helicobacter pylori infection should be tested for and eradicated prior to starting NSAID treatment in PWH. Furthermore, regular blood pressure and renal function test monitoring is required during COX-2 inhibitor treatment.

Interactions between rivaroxaban and antiphospholipid antibodies in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Rivaroxaban can affect lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) may interfere with the anticoagulant action of rivaroxaban. AIMS: To establish the influence of rivaroxaban on LA detection and of aPL on the anticoagulant action of rivaroxaban. METHODS: Rivaroxaban and 52 IgG preparations (20 LA+ve, 12 LA-ve thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome [APS] patients, and 20 normal controls [NC]) were spiked into pooled normal plasma (PNP) for relevant studies. LA detection was also studied in APS patients receiving rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily. RESULTS: In vitro spiking of samples with rivaroxaban showed no false positive LA with Textarin time, Taipan venom time/Ecarin clotting time (TVT/ECT), dilute prothrombin time (dPT) and in-house dilute Russell's viper venom time (DRVVT), but false positives in the majority of NC and LA negative IgG with two commercial DRVVT reagents at 250 ng/mL but not 50 ng/mL rivaroxaban. Ex vivo studies: six LA+ve patients on rivaroxaban remained LA positive with TVT/ECT and DRVVT at peak (162-278 ng/mL) and trough (30-85 ng/mL) rivaroxaban levels. Six LA-ve patients became (apparently) LA+ve with two DRVVT reagents (test/confirm ratio median [confidence interval], 1.6 [1.3-1.8], 1.6 [1.4-1.9]) but not with TVT/ECT at peak rivaroxaban levels, and remained LA-ve with both DRVVT reagents and TVT/ECT at trough levels. aPL positive IgG spiking of PNP had no effect on rivaroxaban's anticoagulant action on thrombin generation or rivaroxaban anti-Xa levels. CONCLUSIONS: The TVT/ECT ratio and Textarin time were not affected even at peak rivaroxaban levels, enabling detection of LA ex vivo. aPL had no effects on rivaroxaban's anticoagulant action in vitro.

Rivaroxaban and warfarin achieve effective anticoagulation, as assessed by inhibition of TG and in-vivo markers of coagulation activation, in patients with venous thromboembolism.

INTRODUCTION: Rivaroxaban is non-inferior to warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, with regard to clinical efficacy and safety. The ex-vivo effects of warfarin versus therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on in-vivo markers of coagulation activation and thrombin generation remain undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of warfarin and therapeutic dose rivaroxaban on ex-vivo thrombin generation (TG), and the in-vivo markers of coagulation activation, prothrombin fragment 1.2 (F1.2), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), and D-dimer. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with venous thromboembolism were studied, 45 on warfarin, target INR 2.5 and 40 on rivaroxaban 20mg once daily. RESULTS: Anticoagulation was in therapeutic range in 71% (32/45) warfarin and 65% (26/40) rivaroxaban treated patients. 8 patients on warfarin and 9 patients on rivaroxaban had subtherapeutic INR and rivaroxaban levels respectively. Both rivaroxaban and warfarin reduced endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) and peak thrombin, and prolonged lag time and time to peak, compared to normal controls (p<0.0001). The lag time and time to peak TG were longer, and peak thrombin was lower in patients receiving rivaroxaban (p<0.0001) compared with warfarin, although warfarin-treated patients had lower ETP (p=0.0008). In-vivo coagulation activation markers were within the normal ranges in all rivaroxaban-treated patients (including those with levels considered to be subtherapeutic) and in 37/45 warfarin-treated patients who had an INR≥2.0. The warfarin-treated patients with subtherapeutic INRs exhibited slightly raised F1.2 and/or TAT. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both rivaroxaban and warfarin provided effective anticoagulation, as assessed by inhibition of TG and makers of in-vivo coagulation activation.

Anti-protein C antibodies are associated with resistance to endogenous protein C activation and a severe thrombotic phenotype in antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid antibodies may interfere with the anticoagulant activity of activated protein C (APC) to induce acquired APC resistance (APCr). AIMS: To investigate the frequency and characteristics of APCr by using recombinant human APC (rhAPC) and endogenous protein C activation in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). METHODS: APCr was assessed in APS and non-APS venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients on warfarin and normal controls with rhAPC or Protac by thrombin generation. IgG anti-protein C and anti-protein S antibodies and avidity were assessed by ELISA. RESULTS: APS patients showed greater resistance to both rhAPC and Protac than non-APS patients and normal controls (median normalized endogenous thrombin potential inhibition): APS patients with rhAPC, 81.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.2-88.3%; non-APS patients with rhAPC, 97.7% (95% CI 93.6-101.8%; APS patients with Protac, 66.0% (95% CI 59.5-72.6%); and non-APS patients with Protac, 80.7 (95% CI 74.2-87.2%). APS patients also had a higher frequency and higher levels of anti-protein C antibodies, with 60% (15/25) high-avidity antibodies. High-avidity anti-protein C antibodies were associated with greater APCr and with a severe thrombotic phenotype (defined as the development of recurrent VTE while patients were receiving therapeutic anticoagulation or both venous and arterial thrombosis). Twelve of 15 (80%) patients with high-avidity anti-protein C antibodies were classified as APS category I. CONCLUSION: Thrombotic APS patients showed greater APCr to both rhAPC and activation of endogenous protein C by Protac. High-avidity anti-protein C antibodies, associated with greater APCr, may provide a marker for a severe thrombotic phenotype in APS. However, in patients with category I APS, it remains to be established whether anti-protein C or anti-ß2 -glycoprotein I antibodies are responsible for APCr.