Preanalytical issues that may cause misdiagnosis in haemophilia and von Willebrand disease.

von Willebrand disease (VWD) and haemophilia represent common inherited or acquired bleeding disorders, but many laboratories and clinicians continue to struggle with their diagnosis or exclusion. Difficulties in achieving a correct diagnosis or exclusion of VWD or haemophilia might be due to analytical issues. Sometimes assays may generate a wrong result (ie an analytical error) or may have limitations in their dynamic range of measurement and/or their level of low analytical sensitivity. Less well recognized is the influence of preanalytical issues on the diagnosis of VWD or haemophilia. Therefore, this narrative review aims to provide an overview of some important preanalytical aspects that may affect the diagnosis of VWD or haemophilia, as well as a range of solutions that may help in mitigating or abrogating their influence. The review includes discussion of the more commonly noted preanalytical issues, such as haemolysis/icterus/lipaemia, and sample collection, processing and transport. However, we also extensively discuss other less well-recognized preanalytical issues, including clinical requests, anticoagulants and anticoagulant therapy, and laboratory test choices to name a few.

Potential misdiagnosis of von Willebrand disease and haemophilia caused by ineffective mixing of thawed plasma.

INTRODUCTION: von Willebrand disease (VWD) reflects a loss or dysfunction in von Willebrand factor (VWF), while haemophilia represents a loss or dysfunction of clotting factors such as factor VIII (FVIII) or FIX. Their diagnosis requires laboratory testing, with this potentially compromised by preanalytical events, including poor sample quality. This study assessed the effect of inadequate mixing as a potential cause of VWD and haemophilia misdiagnosis. METHODS: After completion of requested testing, 48 consecutive patient samples comprising separate aliquots from single collections were individually pooled, appropriately mixed, then frozen in separate aliquots, either at -20°C or -80°C for 2-7 days. Each sample set was then thawed and the separate aliquots subjected to separate mixing protocols (several inversions, blood roller, vortex) vs a non-mix sample, and all aliquots then tested for various VWF and factor assays. RESULTS: Non-mixing led to substantial reduction in VWF and factors in about 25% of samples, that in some cases could lead to misdiagnosis of VWD or haemophilia. Interestingly, there were also some differences observed with respect to different mixing protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified ineffective or variable mixing of thawed plasma samples as potential causes of misdiagnosis of VWD or haemophilia. Further education regarding the importance of appropriate mixing appears warranted.

Type 2M von Willebrand disease - more often misidentified than correctly identified.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD), including differential identification of qualitative vs. quantitative von Willebrand factor (VWF) defects has important management implications, but remains problematic. AIM: The aim of the study was to assess whether 2M VWD, defining qualitative defects not associated with loss of high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, is often misidentified, given highly variable reported frequency ranging from 0 to ~60% of all type 2 VWD. METHODS: A comparative evaluation of laboratory ability to appropriately identify 2M VWD (n = 4) vs. HMW VWF reduction (n = 4), as sent to participants of an international external quality assessment programme. RESULTS: Laboratories had considerably greater difficulty identifying type 2M VWD, correctly identifying these on average only 29.4% of occasions, with the 70.6% error rate representing use of insufficient test panels (41.7%), misinterpretation of test results (10.0%) and analytical errors (13.3%). One type 2M case, giving a median of 49 U dL(-1) VWF:Ag, was more often misidentified as type 2A/2B VWD (46.7%) than 2M (34.8%). Another 2M case, giving a median of 189 U dL(-1) VWF:Ag, was instead often misidentified as being normal (non-VWD) (36.4%), with identifications of type 2A/2B VWD (13.6%) also represented. In comparison, errors in identification of HMW VWF reduced samples only averaged 11.5%, primarily driven by use of insufficient test panels (6.3%) or misinterpretation of results (4.2%) and infrequently analytical errors (1.0%). CONCLUSION: Type 2M VWD is more often misidentified (70.6%) than correctly identified as 2M VWD (29.4%), and potentially explaining the relative under-reported incidence of 2M VWD in the literature.

Pearls and pitfalls in factor inhibitor assays.

The proper performance and interpretation of factor inhibitor assays is a critical role for the hemostasis laboratory. Both false-positive and false-negative inhibitor assays may be reported, leading to serious patient mismanagement. Knowledge and recognition of common causes of both false-positive and negative-results can aid in the identification of these potential pitfalls. Safeguards to reporting accurate factor inhibitor assays include initial characterization of the sample, using the Nijmegen modification, properly performing and interpreting an incubated mixing test in conjunction, and performing two dilutions for each dependent dilution in the factor inhibitor assay.

The effect of hyperglycaemia on haemostasis testing--a volunteer study.

We investigated whether the contamination of samples with glucose subsequently tested for haemostasis affected the results, including prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time and fibrinogen concentration. Venous blood was collected from 12 healthy subjects and divided into four aliquots, which were subjected to different degrees of contamination with standard glucose solution (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%). With increasing glucose contamination, prothrombin time increased from mean (SD) 11.0 (0.7) s to 11.2 (0.7) s, 11.5 (0.7) s and 12.2 (0.8) s, all p < 0.001. Activated partial thromboplastin time decreased from 32.3 (0.9) s to 30.9 (0.8) s, 30.8 (0.8) s, and 29.7 (0.7) s, all p < 0.001. Fibrinogen concentration decreased from 3.8 (0.7) g.l(-1) to 3.7 (0.6) g.l(-1), 3.6 (0.6) g.l(-1), and 3.4 (0.6) g.l(-1), all p < 0.001. Bias was clinically meaningful from 5% contamination for activated partial thromboplastin time, 10% contamination for prothrombin time and 20% contamination for fibrinogen concentration. We conclude that if glucose contamination of haemostasis samples is suspected or has occurred, the specimens should not be analysed.

Sodium citrate blood contamination by K2 -ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA): impact on routine coagulation testing.

INTRODUCTION: The potential cross-contamination of additives between primary blood tubes is a well-known problem during sample collection. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of citrated blood contamination with different amounts of dipotassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic (K2 EDTA blood) on activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen. METHODS: Blood was collected from 15 ostensibly healthy volunteers into four 0.109 m citrate blood tubes followed by one K2 EDTA blood tube. The citrate tubes of each subject were pooled and divided in five aliquots. The whole blood of the K2 EDTA tube was then added in scalar amounts to autologous citrated blood aliquots, to obtain K2 EDTA contamination ranging from 0% to 43%, and thus mimic potential pre-analytical contamination. RESULTS: A statistically and clinically significant prolongation was observed for both APTT and PT between 29% and 43% K2 EDTA contamination, whereas the decrease of fibrinogen values became statistically and clinically significant at 43% K2 EDTA contamination. CONCLUSION: The results of this investigation show that contamination of citrated blood with as much as 29% of K2 EDTA blood generates a significant bias in results of routine clotting assays. This has serious implications for patient safety and management.

von Willebrand disease and platelet disorders.

The diagnosis and management of bleeding disorders is made difficult by the complexity and variety of disorders, clinical symptoms and bleeding type and severity. von Willebrand disease (VWD) and platelet disorders are disorders of primary haemostasis and together represent the most common inherited bleeding disorders. In this article, we describe the diagnosis of VWD and platelet disorders and the treatment options for VWD.

Laboratory testing for factor inhibitors.

Inhibitor assays are performed when patients present with unexplained prolonged routine coagulation test times and unexpected and/or unusual bleeding (potential for acquired haemophilia) as well as being a part of normal congenital haemophilia management and monitoring, particularly when bleeding occurs on therapy, or when increments in factor levels post-factor replacement remain lower than expected. In this article, we will describe the assays used, as well as their development, pitfalls in testing such as inter-laboratory variability and false negative/positive results, as well as some strategies for overcoming these pitfalls and potential alternative test approaches. The inter-laboratory coefficient of variation often approaches (and sometimes exceeds) 50%, as evidenced by various external quality assessment groups, and this variability has not improved over recent years. Additional important considerations include appropriate interpretation of test results, repeat testing for confirmation, and assessment of recovery as part of the diagnostic process.

Variability and diagnostic utility of antiphospholipid antibodies including lupus anticoagulants.

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) comprise a heterogeneous group of antibodies directed against phospholipids and/or protein-complexed phospholipids. aPL are associated with the serious autoimmune condition 'antiphosholipid (antibody) syndrome' (APS) and can be defined by either 'solid-phase' assays that identify anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aB2GPI) or 'liquid-phase' assays that identify lupus anticoagulants (LAs). There is a lack of standardization associated with all forms of aPL testing; however, intermethod and interlaboratory variation using aCL and aB2GPI assays is generally higher than that for LA testing by dRVVT (dilute russell viper venom time) procedures. Compared with either aCL or aB2GPI, LA is also more strongly associated with clinically adverse findings of APS, including thrombosis and obstetric morbidity. This review explores the potential reasons for the above findings and concludes that ultimately a more holistic approach to aPL/APS investigations is needed.

Establishment and characterization of a new and stable collagen-binding assay for the assessment of von Willebrand factor activity.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) requires determination of both von Willebrand factor (VWF) protein levels and activity. Current VWF activity tests include the ristocetin cofactor assay and the collagen-binding assay (VWF:CB). The goal of this investigation is to characterize a new collagen-binding assay and to determine its effectiveness in identifying VWD. METHODS: Analytical studies were carried out to characterize the performance of a new VWF:CB ELISA. Additionally, samples from a normal population were tested as were well-characterized type 1 and type 2 VWD samples. RESULTS: Repeatability and within-laboratory precision studies resulted in coefficients of variation (CVs) of ≤11%. A linear range of 1-354% (0.01-3.54 IU/mL) was determined, along with a limit of detection and a lower limit of quantitation of 1.6% and 4.0% (0.016 and 0.04 IU/mL), respectively. Samples tested from apparently healthy individuals resulted in a normal range of 54-217% (0.54-2.17 IU/mL). Known VWD type 1 and type 2 samples were also analyzed by the ELISA, with 99% of samples having VWF:CB below the normal reference range and an estimated 96% sensitivity and 87% specificity using a VWF collagen-binding/antigen cutoff ratio of 0.50. CONCLUSION: This new VWF:CB ELISA provides an accurate measure of collagen-binding activity that aids in the diagnosis and differentiation of type 1 from type 2 VWD.

Difficulties and pitfalls in the laboratory diagnosis of bleeding disorders.

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, but variable severity and several classification types mean that diagnosis is often not straightforward. In many countries, the assays are not readily available and/or are not well standardized. The latest methods and the basis of VWD are discussed here, together with information from the international quality assessment programme (IEQAS). Factor XIII deficiency is a rare, but important bleeding disorder, which may be missed or diagnosed late. A discussion and update on this diagnosis is considered in the final section of our review.

Differential sensitivity of von Willebrand factor (VWF) 'activity' assays to large and small VWF molecular weight forms: a cross-laboratory study comparing ristocetin cofactor, collagen-binding and mAb-based assays.

BACKGROUND: von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common inherited bleeding disorder, is caused by deficiencies and/or defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF). An effective diagnostic and VWD typing strategy requires plasma testing for factor VIII, and VWF antigen plus one or more VWF 'activity' assays. VWF activity is classically assessed by using VWF ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo), although VWF collagen-binding (VWF:CB) and VWF mAb-based (VWF activity [VWF:Act]) assays are used by some laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cross-laboratory study to specifically evaluate these three VWF activity assays for comparative sensitivity to loss of high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, representing the form of VWF that is most functionally active and that is absent in some types of VWD, namely 2A and 2B. METHODS: A set of eight samples, including six selectively representing stepwise reduction in HMW VWF, were tested by 51 different laboratories using a variety of assays. RESULTS: The combined data showed that the VWF:CB and VWF:RCo assays had higher sensitivity to the loss of HMW VWF than did the VWF:Act assay. Moreover, within-method analysis identified better HMW VWF sensitivity of some VWF:CB assays than of others, with all VWF:CB assays still showing better sensitivity than the VWF:Act assay. Differences were also identified between VWF:RCo methodologies on the basis of either platelet aggregometry or as performed on automated analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that these results have significant clinical implications for the diagnosis of VWD and monitoring of its therapy, as well as for the future diagnosis and therapy monitoring of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Clinical audit of antiphospholipid antibody testing in tertiary practice: towards improved relevance in thrombophilia investigations.

BACKGROUND: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterised by vascular thromboses and/or pregnancy morbidity. Diagnosis of APS typically requires laboratory evidence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Depending on their clinical presentation, affected individuals might be seen by a variety of clinical specialities. AIM: To evaluate clinical ordering patterns for aPL/APS at a tertiary level public facility. METHODS: We performed an audit of internal clinical requests for aPL tests at our institution for a 6-month period. RESULTS: We identified a wide variety of clinical ordering background for aPL, of predominantly obstetric (72/268; 26.9%) or thrombophilic (78/268; 29.1%) patients. Only 11/268 samples (4.1%) were positive for lupus anticoagulant (LA) and 14/268 (5.2%) were positive for anticardiolipin antibody (aCL). The percentage of aCL positivity in the LA-positive group was 46% (5/11). None of the 72 obstetric patients tested was identified to have aPL. Of the 11 LA-positive patients, the reasons identified for testing comprised: prolonged Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (assay) (n= 3), thrombosis (n= 3), APS (n= 2), systemic lupus erythematosus (n= 2), vasculitis (n= 1). CONCLUSION: We determined a wide variety of clinical ordering background for aPL at a tertiary level institution, with an overall low rate (<10%) of aPL positivity among a hospital population of predominantly obstetric or thrombophilic patients. That no positive obstetric aPL cases were identified suggests local clinical ordering guidelines may need review, as also potentially practised at other institutions. We also observed a moderate rate (46%) of coincidence of aCL and LA, in agreement with guidelines indicating that multiple tests are required to identify APS.