Lupus anticoagulant: a multicenter study for a standardized and harmonized reporting.

Laboratory assessment of Lupus anticoagulant (LAC) is very challenging because of inter and intralaboratory variability, which makes it difficult to standardize and harmonize results expression. Five hospital laboratories in North-eastern Italy shared their efforts and their experience in a cross-laboratory study, conducting the diagnostic process as homogeneously as possible and providing a better interpretation for LAC positivity. Hundred normal samples from healthy subjects (20 from each center) were processed to confirm negative upper limits and calculate positivity cutoffs of LAC integrated assays, that is dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and silica clotting time (SCT). Moreover, 311 samples previously diagnosed by the laboratories as positive for LAC were analyzed to characterize different positivity levels for each assay. As far as the analysis of healthy subjects is concerned, negative upper limits are set at 1.17 and 1.19 for dRVVT and SCT screen ratio, respectively. Positivity cutoffs are set at 1.20 for dRVVT and 1.23 for SCT, expressed as Test Ratio calculated on screen and confirm integrated tests. Positive results for each integrated assay are subsequently divided into three subgroups: weak, moderate and strong; the results obtained are presented as a score proposal that can provide LAC interpretation. The combined use of both dRVVT and SCT assays and the definition of different positivity levels may lead to clearer, more objective LAC reporting. An interpretative table for LAC-proposed score provides LAC-positive results and it is now adopted by all centers involved in the study.

Cooperation experience in a multicentre study to define the upper limits in a normal population for the diagnostic assessment of the functional lupus anticoagulant assays.

BACKGROUND: Phospholipid-dependent coagulation tests for lupus anticoagulant (LA) are considered an important step for the diagnosis of anti-phospholipid syndrome; however, LA laboratory detection is difficult because of many variables. Five hospital laboratories, located in a North-Italy area and using the same method for LA testing, cooperated to standardise sample treatment and analytical procedure in order to define the upper values for LA negativity. METHODS: In total, 200 normal subjects (40 for each centre) were studied for six LA functional assays, using the same procedure, reagent lot and analyser type. The first tests done were LA screen and LA confirm assays, based on diluted Russell's Viper Venom Time, with low and high phospholipid content, respectively. The second tests performed were silica clotting time screen and confirm assays, based on activated partial thromboplastin time, with low and high phospholipid content, respectively. Finally, two mixing assays were executed for both screening assays, diluting patient sample with a pool prepared with plasma collected from the study population. RESULTS: Data analysis demonstrated a difference between centres for all assays when results were expressed in seconds; the difference disappeared when results are normalised with the local mean normal value of each centre and are expressed as a normalised ratio. The study population was normally distributed; so the value corresponding to 99th percentile was used as limit value for LA negativity. Values expressed as normalised ratio, for LA and silica clotting time screenings were 1.22 and 1.23, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study allowed us to define a uniform approach to LA testing and evaluation for laboratories employing the same methods.