Von Willebrand factor testing ratios in the diagnosis and subtyping of von Willebrand disease.

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common bleeding disorder of platelet adhesion with six currently recognized subtypes. Laboratory diagnosis consists of an initial test panel including antigen, activity and factor VIII measurements, sometimes followed by further specialized testing. VWF activity/antigen testing ratios help to differentiate type 1 and type 2 disease, which is important for selection of proper therapy. Recommended ratio cutoffs differ by guideline, ranging from 0.5 to 0.7, with 0.7 commonly recommended. The ratio cutoff used affects the sensitivity and specificity for type 2 diagnosis. Variability in VWD due to underlying mutations and patient factors, as well as variability in VWF tests, impact the accuracy of ratios for VWD subtyping. This review discusses the use of activity/antigen ratios in the diagnosis and subtyping of VWD with a focus on technical aspects of the tests.

Automation of a Factor XIII Activity Assay Utilizing a Plasma Blank Measurement.

Factor XIII (FXIII) is an essential coagulation factor that stabilizes fibrin clots and allows the clot to resist fibrinolysis. Inherited or acquired FXIII deficiency is a severe bleeding disorder with manifestations that can include fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Accurate FXIII laboratory testing is necessary for diagnosis, subtyping, and treatment monitoring. The recommended first-line test is FXIII activity, most commonly performed by commercial ammonia release assays. In these assays, it is important to perform a plasma blank measurement to correct for FXIII-independent ammonia production, which can lead to clinically significant overestimation of FXIII activity. Automated performance of a commercial FXIII activity assay (Technoclone, Vienna, Austria), including blank correction, on the BCS XP instrument is described.

Analysis of College of American Pathologists von Willebrand Factor Proficiency Testing Program.

Von Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

Analysis of College of American Pathologists von Willebrand Factor Proficiency Testing Program.

Von Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

Establishing reference intervals for von Willebrand factor multimers.

Background: von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimers (VWF:MM) methodologies are technically difficult, laborious, time consuming, non-standardized and results vary between laboratories. A new semi automated VWF:MM assay is available for routine use (Sebia). Due to lack of reference values for VWF:MM fractions, results interpretation can be challenging in some cases. The aim of this study was to determine reference intervals for low molecular weight (LMWM), intermediate molecular weight (IMWM) and high molecular weight (HMWM) multimers. Methods: By the international cooperation initiated between 4 countries (Estonia, Latvia, France, and USA) 131 samples of relatively healthy individuals were analyzed for VWF:MM (in total 51 males and 80 non-pregnant females aged 17-69 years). Reference intervals were calculated according to CLSI C28-A3 standard. Results: The proposed reference intervals for VWF:MM were calculated for LMWM 10.4-22.5%, IMWM 22.6-37.6%, HMWM 45.6-66.6%. Age related differences were seen in IMWM and HMWM (p<0.001 and 0.038). There was no gender related difference observed. Geographically LMWM results of France were different from the other regions (p<0.05). Conclusions: Quantification of VWF:MM fractions, in addition to qualitative assessment of VWF:MM patterns, has the potential to aid in differential diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) subtypes. The reference values calculated in this study can be used in future research to establish clinical decision limits.

Persistence of Ad26.COV2.S-associated vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and specific detection of VITT antibodies.

Rare cases of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals develop anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies that cause thrombocytopenia and thrombotic complications, a syndrome referred to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Currently, information on the characteristics and persistence of anti-PF4 antibodies that cause VITT after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination is limited, and available diagnostic assays fail to differentiate Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-associated VITT from similar clinical disorders, namely heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and spontaneous HIT. Here we demonstrate that while Ad26.COV2.S-associated VITT patients are uniformly strongly positive in PF4-polyanion enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs); they are frequently negative in the serotonin release assay (SRA). The PF4-dependent p-selectin expression assay (PEA) that uses platelets treated with PF4 rather than heparin consistently diagnosed Ad26.COV2.S-associated VITT. Most Ad26.COV2.S-associated VITT antibodies persisted for >5 months in PF4-polyanion ELISAs, while the PEA became negative earlier. Two patients had otherwise unexplained mild persistent thrombocytopenia (140-150 x 103 /µL) 6 months after acute presentation. From an epidemiological perspective, differentiating VITT from spontaneous HIT, another entity that develops in the absence of proximate heparin exposure, and HIT is important, but currently available PF4-polyanion ELISAs and functional assay are non-specific and detect all three conditions. Here, we report that a novel un-complexed PF4 ELISA specifically differentiates VITT, secondary to both Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, from both spontaneous HIT, HIT and commonly-encountered HIT-suspected patients who are PF4/polyanion ELISA-positive but negative in functional assays. In summary, Ad26.COV2.S-associated VITT antibodies are persistent, and the un-complexed PF4 ELISA appears to be both sensitive and specific for VITT diagnosis.

Interlaboratory Performance in Measurement of Dabigatran and Rivaroxaban.

CONTEXT.­: Assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug levels by reliable laboratory assays is necessary in a number of clinical scenarios. OBJECTIVE.­: To evaluate the performance of DOAC-specific assays for various concentrations of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, assess the interlaboratory variability in measurement of these DOACs, and investigate the responsiveness of the routine clotting assays to various concentrations of these oral anticoagulants. DESIGN.­: College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data from 2013 to 2016 were summarized and analyzed. RESULTS.­: For dabigatran, the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) of ecarin chromogenic assay was broad (ranging from 7.5% to 29.1%, 6.3% to 15.5%, and 6.8% to 9.0% for 100-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The CV for diluted thrombin time for dabigatran was better overall (ranging from 11.6% to 17.2%, 9.3% to 12.3, and 7.1% to 11.2% for 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). The rivaroxaban-calibrated anti-Xa assay CVs also showed variability (ranging from 11.5% to 22.2%, 7.2% to 10.9%, and 6.4% to 8.1% for 50-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) showed variable dose- and reagent-dependent responsiveness to DOACs: PT was more responsive to rivaroxaban and aPTT to dabigatran. The undiluted thrombin time showed maximum prolongation across all 3 dabigatran concentrations, making it too sensitive for drug-level monitoring, but supporting its use as a qualitative screening assay. CONCLUSIONS.­: DOAC-specific assays performed reasonably well. While PT and aPTT cannot be used safely to determine DOAC degree of anticoagulation, a normal thrombin time excludes the presence of dabigatran.

Cryptogenic oozers and bruisers.

Bleeding disorders with normal, borderline, or nondiagnostic coagulation tests represent a diagnostic challenge. Disorders of primary hemostasis can be further evaluated by additional platelet function testing modalities, platelet electron microscopy, repeat von Willebrand disease testing, and specialized von Willebrand factor testing beyond the usual initial panel. Secondary hemostasis is further evaluated by coagulation factor assays, and factor XIII assays are used to diagnose disorders of fibrin clot stabilization. Fibrinolytic disorders are particularly difficult to diagnose with current testing options. A significant number of patients remain unclassified after thorough testing; most unclassified patients have a clinically mild bleeding phenotype, and many may have undiagnosed platelet function disorders. High-throughput genetic testing using large gene panels for bleeding disorders may allow diagnosis of a larger number of these patients in the future, but more study is needed. A logical laboratory workup in the context of the clinical setting and with a high level of expertise regarding test interpretation and limitations facilitates a diagnosis for as many patients as possible.

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) interference in hemostasis assays.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a group of direct coagulation factor inhibitors including both direct thrombin inhibitors and direct factor Xa inhibitors. These medications may cause hemostasis assay interference by falsely increasing or decreasing measured values, depending on the analyte. Considering the potential for DOAC interference in a variety of hemostasis assays is essential to avoid erroneous interpretation of results. Preanalytic strategies to avoid DOAC interference include selecting alternatives to clot-based hemostasis assays in patients taking DOACs when possible and sample collection timed when the patient is off anticoagulant therapy or at the expected drug trough. Clinical laboratories may also provide educational materials that clearly describe possible interferences from DOAC, develop testing algorithms to aid in detection of DOAC in submitted samples, use DOAC-neutralizing agents to remove DOACs before continuing with testing, and write interpretive comments that explain the effects of DOAC interference in hemostasis tests. Using a combination of the described strategies will aid physicians and laboratorians in correctly interpreting hemostasis and thrombosis laboratory tests in the presence of DOACs.

ADAMTS13 testing update: Focus on laboratory aspects of difficult thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura diagnoses and effects of new therapies.

TTP is a life-threatening disorder diagnosed using a combination of clinical information and laboratory results. ADAMTS13 activity and antibody testing represent a major advance in the field, but results can sometimes be difficult to interpret due to technical aspects of the tests and characteristics of the causative antibodies in acquired TTP. Genetic testing for ADAMTS13 mutations is also now available to assist with the diagnosis of inherited TTP. This review will focus on ADAMTS13 testing and will highlight patient and laboratory aspects that can lead to diagnostic difficulty. The effects of TTP therapies on test results will also be discussed.

Genotype and Phenotype Concordance for Pharmacogenetic Tests Through Proficiency Survey Testing.

CONTEXT.­: As pharmacogenetic testing is incorporated into routine care, it is essential for laboratories to provide accurate and consistent results. Certified laboratories must successfully complete proficiency testing. OBJECTIVES.­: To understand and examine trends in participation and performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing surveys. DESIGN.­: Results from College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing challenges from 2012 through 2017 were reviewed for concordance with expected genotype and phenotype for each sample (intended responses). RESULTS.­: Laboratories correctly reported results for 96.7% to 100% of samples with no variants. Excluding CYP2D6, laboratories correctly detected and reported variant alleles for each gene (93.7%-99.2% correct). CYP2D6 showed lower concordance, with 83.1% of laboratories reporting the intended genotype across all samples; however, in many cases, the laboratories that did not report a variant allele did not test for that allele. Among laboratories reporting the intended genotype, most successfully reported the intended phenotype (85.9%-99.0%). CONCLUSIONS.­: Although laboratories are generally performing well, there is room for additional improvement, particularly for challenging genes, such as CYP2D6. Efforts in the field of pharmacogenomics to recommend alleles that should be included in clinical tests, identify reference materials, and standardize translation from genotype to phenotype may address some of the remaining variability in results.