Comparison of Acquired Activated Protein C Resistance, Using the CAT and ST-Genesia® Analysers and Three Thrombin Generation Methods, in APS and SLE Patients.

BACKGROUND: Acquired activated protein C resistance (APCr) has been identified in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between the ST-Genesia® and CAT analysers in identifying APCr prevalence in APS/SLE patients, using three thrombin generation (TG) methods. METHODS: APCr was assessed with the ST-Genesia using STG-ThromboScreen and with the CAT using recombinant human activated protein C and Protac® in 105 APS, 53 SLE patients and 36 thrombotic controls. Agreement was expressed in % and by Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: APCr values were consistently lower with the ST-Genesia® compared to the CAT, using either method, in both APS and SLE patients. Agreement between the two analysers in identifying APS and SLE patients with APCr was poor (≤65.9%, ≤0.20) or fair (≤68.5%, ≥0.29), regardless of TG method, respectively; no agreement was observed in thrombotic controls. APCr with both the ST Genesia and the CAT using Protac®, but not the CAT using rhAPC, was significantly greater in triple antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) APS patients compared to double/single aPL patients (p < 0.04) and in thrombotic SLE patients compared to non-thrombotic SLE patients (p < 0.05). Notably, the ST-Genesia®, unlike the CAT, with either method, identified significantly greater APCr in pregnancy morbidity (median, confidence intervals; 36.9%, 21.9-49.0%) compared to thrombotic (45.7%, 39.6-55.5%) APS patients (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite the broadly similar methodology used by CAT and ST-Genesia®, agreement in APCr was poor/fair, with results not being interchangeable. This may reflect differences in the TG method, use of different reagents, and analyser data handling.

Comparison of real world and core laboratory lupus anticoagulant results from the Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) clinical database and repository.

BACKGROUND: Variability remains a challenge in lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing. OBJECTIVE: To validate LA test performance between Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Core laboratories and examine agreement in LA status between Core and local/hospital laboratories contributing patients to this prospective registry. METHODS: Five Core laboratories used the same reagents, analyzer type, protocols, and characterized samples for LA validation. Non-anticoagulated registry samples were retested at the corresponding regional Core laboratories and anticoagulated samples at a single Core laboratory. Categorical agreement and discrepancies in LA status between Core and local/hospital laboratories were analyzed. RESULTS: Clotting times for the reference/characterized plasmas used for normalized ratios were similar between Core laboratories (CV <4%); precision and agreement for LA positive/negative plasma were similar (all CV ≤5%) in the four laboratories that completed both parts of the validation exercise; 418 registry samples underwent LA testing. Agreement for LA positive/negative status between Core and local/hospital laboratories was observed in 87% (115/132) non-anticoagulated and 77% (183/237) anticoagulated samples. However, 28.7% (120/418) of samples showed discordance between the Core and local/hospital laboratories or equivocal LA results. Some of the results of the local/hospital laboratories might have been unreliable in 24.7% (41/166) and 23% (58/252) of the total non-anticoagulated and anticoagulated samples, respectively. Equivocal results by the Core laboratory might have also contributed to discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories can achieve good agreement in LA performance by use of the same reagents, analyzer type, and protocols. The standardized Core laboratory results underpin accurate interpretation of APS ACTION clinical data.

Thrombin generation and factor X assays for the assessment of warfarin anticoagulation in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.

Monitoring warfarin anticoagulation in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may be complicated by the sensitivity of different thromboplastins to lupus anticoagulant. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of anticoagulation intensity in thrombotic APS and non-APS patients (50 in each group) on long-term warfarin, by measurement of the INR with two widely available thromboplastins with instrument-specific ISI values, and to investigate the potential role of amidolytic FX levels and thrombin generation (TG) testing in the assessment of anticoagulant intensity in thrombotic APS patients. There were no overall differences in INR between reagents or patient groups, but 20% (10/50) of APS patients showed ≥0.5 INR unit difference between reagents, which would have resulted in altered clinical management in some patients. FX levels were useful in assessing anticoagulation intensity for INR 2.0-3.0, but showed poor utility at INR ≥3.5 where the lowest measured FX level was 12IU/dL. In contrast, ETP and peak thrombin showed significant inverse correlations with the INR, suggesting that TG testing may be helpful in the determination of true anticoagulant intensity in APS patients, including those with ≥3.5 INR. TG testing also highlighted a subgroup of APS patients with increased peak thrombin relative to the intensity of anticoagulation as assessed by INR and FX, suggesting that TG testing may be useful in identifying an ongoing prothrombotic state in patients with apparently adequate anticoagulation intensity as assessed by INR.