RESUMEN
A State of the Art lecture titled "D-dimer Diagnostics: Can I use any D-dimer assay? Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action gap" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023, included in the session on the clinical impact of variability in commonly used coagulation assays. Here, we review the role of D-dimer, primarily in the outpatient diagnosis of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) when combined with clinical decision rules. We focus on the recent large management trials that have studied adjustments of VTE exclusion thresholds for D-dimer based on either prior clinical probability of VTE or patient age, and the resultant benefit of reduced imaging for VTE and improved diagnostic efficiency. In this context, we report on the significant variability between D-dimer results and the multiple D-dimer assays in use worldwide using data from international external quality assurance programs. This variability is particularly high at typical VTE exclusion thresholds. We discuss the potential clinical impact of D-dimer assay substitution on accuracy of diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with VTE. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress and outline future priorities urgently needed to harmonize D-dimer results and reporting that will require international collaboration among multiple stakeholders with an overall goal to close this knowledge-to-action gap.
RESUMEN
Lupus anticoagulant (LA) represents 1 of the laboratory criteria for classification of patients as having definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The other 2 laboratory criteria are anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies. At least 1 of these antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) tests need to be positive, with evidence of persistence, together with evidence of at least 1 clinical criterion for APS, before a patient can be classified as having definite APS. LA and other aPL assays are also important for diagnosis or exclusion of APS, as well as for risk stratification, with triple-positive patients carrying the greatest risk. Whereas LA is identified through "uncalibrated" clot-based assays, the other aPL assays (anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies) represent immunological assays, identified using calibrated solid-phase methods. Because LA is identified using clot-based assays, it is subject to considerable preanalytical and analytical issues that challenge accurate detection or exclusion of LA. In this narrative review, we take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of LA testing, primarily focusing on the last 10 years. Although harmonization of LA testing as a result of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidance documents and other international activities has led to improvements in LA detection, many challenges remain. In particular, several anticoagulants, especially direct oral anticoagulants and also vitamin K antagonists, given as therapy to treat the pathophysiological consequences of aPL, especially thrombosis, interfere with LA assays and can generate false-positive or false-negative LA findings. Overcoming these diagnostic errors will require a multifaceted approach with clinicians and laboratories working together.
RESUMEN
Prothrombin time (PT) and its derivative international normalized ratio (INR) are frequently ordered to assess the coagulation system. Plasma transfusion to treat incidentally abnormal PT/INR is a common practice with low biological plausibility and without credible evidence, yet INR targets appear in major clinical guidelines and account for the majority of plasma use at many institutions. In this article, we review the historical origins of INR targets. We recount historical milestones in the development of the PT, discovery of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), motivation for INR standardization, and justification for INR targets in patients receiving VKA therapy. Next, we summarize evidence for INR testing to assess bleeding risk in patients not on VKA therapy and plasma transfusion for treating mildly abnormal INR to prevent bleeding in these patients. We conclude with a discussion of the parallels in misunderstanding of historic PT and present-day INR testing with lessons from the past that might help rationalize plasma transfusion in the future.