International Council for Standardization in Haematology Field Study Evaluating Optimal Interpretation Methods for Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies.

CONTEXT.­: The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are screening tests used to detect congenital or acquired bleeding disorders. An unexpected PT and/or APTT prolongation is often evaluated using a mixing test with normal plasma. Failure to correct ("noncorrection") prolongation upon mixing is attributed to an inhibitor, whereas "correction" points to factor deficiency(ies). OBJECTIVE.­: To define an optimal method for determining correction or noncorrection of plasma mixing tests through an international, multisite study that used multiple PT and APTT reagents and well-characterized plasma samples. DESIGN.­: Each testing site was provided 22 abnormal and 25 normal donor plasma samples, and mixing studies were performed using local PT and APTT reagents. Mixing study results were evaluated using 11 different calculation methods to assess the optimal method based on the expected interpretation for factor deficiencies (correction) and noncorrection (inhibitor effect). Misprediction, which represents the failure of a mixing study interpretation method, was assessed. RESULTS.­: Percentage correction was the most suitable calculation method for interpreting PT mixing test results for nearly all reagents evaluated. Incubated PT mixing tests should not be performed. For APTT mixing tests, percentage correction should be performed, and if the result indicates a factor deficiency, this should be confirmed with the subtraction III calculation where the normal pooled plasma result (run concurrently) is subtracted from the mixing test result with correction indicated by a result of 0 or less. In general, other calculation methods evaluated that performed well in the identification of factor deficiency tended to have high misprediction rates for inhibitors and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS.­: No single method of mixing test result calculation was consistently successful in accurately distinguishing factor deficiencies from inhibitors, with between-reagent and between-site variability also identified.

Factor V Leiden-independent activated protein C resistance: Communication from the plasma coagulation inhibitors subcommittee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardisation Committee.

Activated protein C resistance (APC-R) due to the single-nucleotide polymorphism factor V Leiden (FVL) is the most common cause of hereditary thrombophilia. It is found predominantly in Caucasians and is uncommon or absent in other populations. Although FVL is responsible for >90% of cases of hereditary APC-R, a number of other F5 variants that also confer various degrees of APC-R and thrombotic risk have been described. Acquired APC-R due to increased levels of coagulation factors, reduced levels of inhibitors, or the presence of autoantibodies occurs in a variety of conditions and is an independent risk factor for thrombosis. It is common for thrombophilia screening protocols to restrict assessment for APC-R to demonstrating the presence or absence of FVL. The aim of this Scientific and Standardisation Committee communication is to detail the causes of FVL-independent APC-R to widen the diagnostic net, particularly in situations in which in vitro APC-R is encountered in the absence of FVL. Predilution clotting assays are not FVL specific and are used to detect clinically significant F5 variants conferring APC-R, whereas different forms of acquired APC-R are preferentially detected using the classical activated partial thromboplastin time-based APC-R assay without predilution and/or endogenous thrombin potential APC-R assays. Resource-specific recommendations are given to guide the detection of FVL-independent APC-R.

Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies: Current State of the Art.

Mixing studies have long been in the clinical laboratory armamentarium for investigating unexpected, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) or prothrombin time (PT). The purpose of the mixing study is to identify whether the aPTT/PT prolongation is secondary to a factor deficiency versus an inhibitor, which would present as a "corrected" and "noncorrected" mixing study, respectively. The differentiation between a factor deficiency and inhibitor may likely further direct clinical decisions, including additional diagnostic testing or factor replacement therapy. While aPTT/PT mixing studies are simple tests to perform, there is a lack of standardization for both the testing protocol and the interpretation of what is considered to be a corrected or noncorrected mixing study result. This review will describe the common indications for the mixing test, preanalytic variables that may affect mixing study performance, and describe several methods for interpreting the results of aPTT and PT mixing tests.

International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations for processing of blood samples for coagulation testing.

This guidance document has been prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH). The aim of the document is to provide guidance and recommendations for the processing of citrated blood samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories in all regions of the world. The following areas are included in this document: Sample transport including use of pneumatic tubes systems; clots in citrated samples; centrifugation; primary tube storage and stability; interfering substances including haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia; secondary aliquots-transport, storage and processing; preanalytical variables for platelet function testing. The following areas are excluded from this document, but are included in an associated ICSH document addressing collection of samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories; ordering tests; sample collection tube and anticoagulant; preparation of the patient; sample collection device; venous stasis before sample collection; order of draw when different sample types are collected; sample labelling; blood-to-anticoagulant ratio (tube filling); influence of haematocrit. The recommendations are based on published data in peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion.

International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations for collection of blood samples for coagulation testing.

This guidance document has been prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH). The aim of the document is to provide guidance and recommendations for collection of blood samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories throughout the world. The following processes will be covered: ordering tests, sample collection tube and anticoagulant, patient preparation, sample collection device, venous stasis before sample collection, order of draw when different sample types need to be collected, sample labelling, blood-to-anticoagulant ratio (tube filling) and influence of haematocrit. The following areas are excluded from this document, but are included in an associated ICSH document addressing processing of samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories: sample transport and primary tube sample stability; centrifugation; interfering substances including haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia; secondary aliquots-transport and storage; and preanalytical variables for platelet function testing. The recommendations are based on published data in peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion.

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.

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

Treatment of haemophilia A/B patients comprises factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) concentrate replacement therapy, respectively. FVIII and FIX activity levels can be measured in clinical laboratories using one-stage activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based clotting or two-stage chromogenic factor activity assays. We discuss strengths and limitations of these assays, providing examples of clinical scenarios to highlight some of the challenges associated with their current use for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Substantial inter-laboratory variability has been reported for one-stage assays when measuring the activity of factor replacement products due to the wide range of currently available aPTT reagents, calibration standards, factor-deficient plasmas, assay conditions and instruments. Chromogenic activity assays may avoid some limitations associated with one-stage assays, but their regulatory status, perceived higher cost, and lack of laboratory expertise may influence their use. Haemophilia management guidelines recommend the differential application of one or both assays for initial diagnosis and disease severity characterisation, post-infusion monitoring and replacement factor potency labelling. Efficient communication between clinical and laboratory staff is crucial to ensure application of the most appropriate assay to each clinical situation, correct interpretation of assay results and, ultimately, accurate diagnosis and optimal and safe treatment of haemophilia A or B patients.

An update on laboratory assessment for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

The first direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) to be approved for clinical use was dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, in 2010. Since that time, four additional DOACs, all direct anti-Xa inhibitors, have been approved, including rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban and betrixaban. Our knowledge about the effect of DOACs on laboratory testing, as well as the use of the laboratory for measuring DOACs has been an evolving process. These drugs are not routinely monitored in the same fashion as coumadin, but there is an increasing demand on the laboratory to have the capacity to adequately assess DOAC anticoagulant effect (pharmacodynamics) or levels (pharmacokinetics) in either emergent or the routine situations. This manuscript provides an update on laboratory guidance and progress of methods for measuring DOACs.

Educational needs of hematologists and laboratory professionals regarding factor activity assays.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis and management of hemophilia require accurate and precise measurements of factor activity levels. Activity is traditionally measured via one-stage (OS) clot-based assay; however, chromogenic substrate (CS) assays may be needed for certain cases. A survey was performed to understand assay-related knowledge gaps among hematologists and laboratory professionals. METHODS: Separate web-based surveys were administered to hematologists who manage hemophilia and to laboratory professionals and queried practice patterns, knowledge of/attitudes toward CS assays, and interest in continuing education. RESULTS: A total of 51 hematologists participated in this study; 67% managed hemophilia patients for ≥10 years and 24% were affiliated with a hemophilia treatment center (HTC). Most (80%) stated familiarity with general assay interpretation. Majorities of non-HTC and HTC respondents agreed that CS assays are more accurate than OS assays (62%/67%), although non-HTC hematologists indicated less understanding of when to order a CS assay (49%/67%). Fewer non-HTC respondents expressed concerns regarding the reliability of OS assays for diagnosis (38%/67%) and monitoring (38%/75%). Most (80%) expressed an interest in factor assay education, especially on available assays, efficacy, and best practices (39%). A total of 57 laboratory professionals participated, averaging 10 years in their current position; most (88%) were hospital based. More performed OS (72%) than CS (10%) or both (17%) assays; only 11% reported confidence with the interpretation of CS results. Few expressed concerns regarding the reliability of OS for diagnosis (9%) or monitoring (12%). Reported barriers to CS use included infrequent need (68%), lack of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (61%), and need for validation work (56%). Most (70%) were interested in CS assay education; top interests included advantages over traditional assays, general information on CS assays, and indications for testing (each 18%). CONCLUSION: Future educational efforts may focus on limitations of OS assays, indications for CS assay diagnosis/monitoring, and support for clinic-laboratory dialog.

International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

This guidance document was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) for providing haemostasis-related guidance documents for clinical laboratories. This inaugural coagulation ICSH document was developed by an ad hoc committee, comprised of international clinical and laboratory direct acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) experts. The committee developed consensus recommendations for laboratory measurement of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban), which would be germane for laboratories assessing DOAC anticoagulation. This guidance document addresses all phases of laboratory DOAC measurements, including pre-analytical (e.g. preferred time sample collection, preferred sample type, sample stability), analytical (gold standard method, screening and quantifying methods) and post analytical (e.g. reporting units, quality assurance). The committee addressed the use and limitations of screening tests such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time as well as viscoelastic measurements of clotting blood and point of care methods. Additionally, the committee provided recommendations for the proper validation or verification of performance of laboratory assays prior to implementation for clinical use, and external quality assurance to provide continuous assessment of testing and reporting method.

Effects of Oritavancin on Coagulation Tests in the Clinical Laboratory.

Previous studies have shown that some lipoglycopeptide and lipopeptide antimicrobial agents may cause falsely elevated values for some phospholipid-dependent coagulation tests. The effect of oritavancin, a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic, on coagulation test results was explored using pooled human plasma samples spiked with drug and in a clinical study after an infusion of a single 1,200-mg intravenous dose of oritavancin in normal healthy volunteers. Pooled plasma with oritavancin added ex vivo showed concentration-dependent prolongation of prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and dilute Russell viper venom time (DRVVT) test results. In contrast, oritavancin had no effect on the activated protein C resistance assay, chromogenic anti-factor Xa assay (anti-FXa), thrombin time, and an immunoassay for the laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. In participants that received a single dose of oritavancin, elevations in PT/INR result, aPTT, DRVVT, activated clotting time, and silica clotting time occurred, with the maximum times to resolution of test interference determined to be 12, 120, 72, 24, and 18 h, respectively. The anti-FXa assay was unaffected, whereas transient elevations in D dimer levels were observed in 30% of participants, with a maximum time to resolution of 72 h. Although oritavancin has no impact on the coagulation system in vivo, a single dose of oritavancin can produce falsely elevated values of some coagulation tests used to monitor hemostasis. The interference of oritavancin on affected tests is transient, and the test results revert to normal ranges within specified times after dosing.

Factor VIII Activity and Inhibitor Assays in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hemophilia A.

The treatment of a patient with a factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency can be complicated. The mainstay of therapy is factor replacement. Replacement therapy can be given prophylactically, with the goal of decreasing hemarthroses and spontaneous hemorrhage, or on-demand for the bleeding patient. Intra- and interindividual variability in a patient's response to treatment has been well documented by the differences in observed half-lives of infused product. Although weight-based dosing nomograms are most often used, personalized therapies are coming into use to ease the burden of therapy and cost. The most significant complication of treatment is the formation of inhibitors to FVIII. The role of the laboratory is to provide results for FVIII activity that accurately reflects a patient's baseline level and response to treatment. However, factor activity assays have many components that can contribute to result variability. These include the methodology and reagent components used to measure the FVIII activity, the reference standard employed, algorithm used to interpret the dilutions, and the replacement factor being measured. An understanding of assay variables and their impact will assist in providing accurate factor activity results and appropriate patient care.

Mixing of thawed coagulation samples prior to testing: Is any technique better than another?

OBJECTIVE: Thus study was aimed to investigate whether the mixing technique could influence the results of routine and specialized clotting tests on post-thawed specimens. METHODS: The sample population consisted of 13 healthy volunteers. Venous blood was collected by evacuated system into three 3.5mL tubes containing 0.109mmol/L buffered sodium citrate. The three blood tubes of each subject were pooled immediately after collection inside a Falcon 15mL tube, then mixed by 6 gentle end-over-end inversions, and centrifuged at 1500g for 15min. Plasma-pool of each subject was then divided in 4 identical aliquots. All aliquots were thawed after 2-day freezing -70°C. Immediately afterwards, the plasma of the four paired aliquots were treated using four different techniques: (a) reference procedure, entailing 6 gentle end-over-end inversions; (b) placing the sample on a blood tube rocker (i.e., rotor mixing) for 5min to induce agitation and mixing; (c) use of a vortex mixer for 20s to induce agitation and mixing; and (d) no mixing. The significance of differences against the reference technique for mixing thawed plasma specimens (i.e., 6 gentle end-over-end inversions) were assessed with paired Student's t-test. The statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: As compared to the reference 6-time gentle inversion technique, statistically significant differences were only observed for fibrinogen, and factor VIII in plasma mixed on tube rocker. Some trends were observed in the remaining other cases, but the bias did not achieve statistical significance. We hence suggest that each laboratory should standardize the procedures for mixing of thawed plasma according to a single technique.

Blood collection tubes as medical devices: The potential to affect assays and proposed verification and validation processes for the clinical laboratory.

Blood collection tubes (BCTs) are an often under-recognized variable in the preanalytical phase of clinical laboratory testing. Unfortunately, even the best-designed and manufactured BCTs may not work well in all clinical settings. Clinical laboratories, in collaboration with healthcare providers, should carefully evaluate BCTs prior to putting them into clinical use to determine their limitations and ensure that patients are not placed at risk because of inaccuracies due to poor tube performance. Selection of the best BCTs can be achieved through comparing advertising materials, reviewing the literature, observing the device at a scientific meeting, receiving a demonstration, evaluating the device under simulated conditions, or testing the device with patient samples. Although many publications have discussed method validations, few detail how to perform experiments for tube verification and validation. This article highlights the most common and impactful variables related to BCTs and discusses the validation studies that a typical clinical laboratory should perform when selecting BCTs. We also present a brief review of how in vitro diagnostic devices, particularly BCTs, are regulated in the United States, the European Union, and Canada. The verification and validation of BCTs will help to avoid the economic and human costs associated with incorrect test results, including poor patient care, unnecessary testing, and delays in test results. We urge laboratorians, tube manufacturers, diagnostic companies, and other researchers to take all the necessary steps to protect against the adverse effects of BCT components and their additives on clinical assays.