International Council for Standardization in Haematology Field Study Evaluating Optimal Interpretation Methods for Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies.

CONTEXT.­: The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are screening tests used to detect congenital or acquired bleeding disorders. An unexpected PT and/or APTT prolongation is often evaluated using a mixing test with normal plasma. Failure to correct ("noncorrection") prolongation upon mixing is attributed to an inhibitor, whereas "correction" points to factor deficiency(ies). OBJECTIVE.­: To define an optimal method for determining correction or noncorrection of plasma mixing tests through an international, multisite study that used multiple PT and APTT reagents and well-characterized plasma samples. DESIGN.­: Each testing site was provided 22 abnormal and 25 normal donor plasma samples, and mixing studies were performed using local PT and APTT reagents. Mixing study results were evaluated using 11 different calculation methods to assess the optimal method based on the expected interpretation for factor deficiencies (correction) and noncorrection (inhibitor effect). Misprediction, which represents the failure of a mixing study interpretation method, was assessed. RESULTS.­: Percentage correction was the most suitable calculation method for interpreting PT mixing test results for nearly all reagents evaluated. Incubated PT mixing tests should not be performed. For APTT mixing tests, percentage correction should be performed, and if the result indicates a factor deficiency, this should be confirmed with the subtraction III calculation where the normal pooled plasma result (run concurrently) is subtracted from the mixing test result with correction indicated by a result of 0 or less. In general, other calculation methods evaluated that performed well in the identification of factor deficiency tended to have high misprediction rates for inhibitors and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS.­: No single method of mixing test result calculation was consistently successful in accurately distinguishing factor deficiencies from inhibitors, with between-reagent and between-site variability also identified.

Corrigendum to 'The Hemophilia Joint Health Score version 2.1 Validation in Adult Patients Study: A multicenter international study' [Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 6/2, (2022) e12690].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1002/rth2.12690.].

Factor V Leiden-independent activated protein C resistance: Communication from the plasma coagulation inhibitors subcommittee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardisation Committee.

Activated protein C resistance (APC-R) due to the single-nucleotide polymorphism factor V Leiden (FVL) is the most common cause of hereditary thrombophilia. It is found predominantly in Caucasians and is uncommon or absent in other populations. Although FVL is responsible for >90% of cases of hereditary APC-R, a number of other F5 variants that also confer various degrees of APC-R and thrombotic risk have been described. Acquired APC-R due to increased levels of coagulation factors, reduced levels of inhibitors, or the presence of autoantibodies occurs in a variety of conditions and is an independent risk factor for thrombosis. It is common for thrombophilia screening protocols to restrict assessment for APC-R to demonstrating the presence or absence of FVL. The aim of this Scientific and Standardisation Committee communication is to detail the causes of FVL-independent APC-R to widen the diagnostic net, particularly in situations in which in vitro APC-R is encountered in the absence of FVL. Predilution clotting assays are not FVL specific and are used to detect clinically significant F5 variants conferring APC-R, whereas different forms of acquired APC-R are preferentially detected using the classical activated partial thromboplastin time-based APC-R assay without predilution and/or endogenous thrombin potential APC-R assays. Resource-specific recommendations are given to guide the detection of FVL-independent APC-R.

Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies: Current State of the Art.

Mixing studies have long been in the clinical laboratory armamentarium for investigating unexpected, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) or prothrombin time (PT). The purpose of the mixing study is to identify whether the aPTT/PT prolongation is secondary to a factor deficiency versus an inhibitor, which would present as a "corrected" and "noncorrected" mixing study, respectively. The differentiation between a factor deficiency and inhibitor may likely further direct clinical decisions, including additional diagnostic testing or factor replacement therapy. While aPTT/PT mixing studies are simple tests to perform, there is a lack of standardization for both the testing protocol and the interpretation of what is considered to be a corrected or noncorrected mixing study result. This review will describe the common indications for the mixing test, preanalytic variables that may affect mixing study performance, and describe several methods for interpreting the results of aPTT and PT mixing tests.

Diagnosis and management of severe congenital protein C deficiency (SCPCD): Communication from the SSC of the ISTH.

Severe congenital protein C deficiency (SCPCD) is rare and there is currently substantial variation in the management of this condition. A joint project by three Scientific and Standardization Committees of the ISTH: Plasma Coagulation Inhibitors, Pediatric/Neonatal Thrombosis and Hemostasis, and Women's Health Issues in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, was developed to review the current evidence and help guide on diagnosis and management of SCPCD. We provide a summary of the clinical presentations, differential diagnoses, appropriate investigations to confirm the diagnosis, approaches for management of the acute situation, and options for long-term management including subsequent pregnancies. We finally provide a set of recommendations to help in this regard.

Virtual Reality Based Guided Meditation for Patients with Opioid Tolerance and Opioid Use Disorders.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute pain in patients with pre-existing opioid tolerance or opioid use disorders presents unique challenges. In light of the concerns regarding opioid use, safe and effective alternatives to opioid medications are of increasing interest. AIMS: This study was conducted to determine if the use of guided meditation delivered through immersive virtual reality can reduce pain in patients with opioid tolerance or opioid use disorders, including opioid abuse or opioid dependence. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test study design was used. SETTINGS: A 31-bed inpatient orthopedic/trauma unit in the southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: Subjects of the pilot study were hospitalized adults over the age of 18 with pre-existing opioid tolerance or opioid use disorder who were experiencing acute pain. METHODS: This pilot study examined the effect of a 10-minute guided meditation activity through immersive virtual reality on the reported acute pain of hospitalized adults (n = 11) with pre-existing opioid tolerance or opioid use disorders. The Calm® application on an Oculus Go® virtual reality head-mounted display was used for the meditation activity. RESULTS: Before the intervention, the mean patient-reported pain rating was 6.68, and the mean pain score after the virtual reality experience was 3.36. Using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, this was a statistically significant difference (p = .003). Patients were also observed and queried regarding any significant side effects or other incidental findings, none of which were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the use of guided meditation through virtual reality can result in statistically significant reductions in patient-reported pain scores.

International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations for processing of blood samples for coagulation testing.

This guidance document has been prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH). The aim of the document is to provide guidance and recommendations for the processing of citrated blood samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories in all regions of the world. The following areas are included in this document: Sample transport including use of pneumatic tubes systems; clots in citrated samples; centrifugation; primary tube storage and stability; interfering substances including haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia; secondary aliquots-transport, storage and processing; preanalytical variables for platelet function testing. The following areas are excluded from this document, but are included in an associated ICSH document addressing collection of samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories; ordering tests; sample collection tube and anticoagulant; preparation of the patient; sample collection device; venous stasis before sample collection; order of draw when different sample types are collected; sample labelling; blood-to-anticoagulant ratio (tube filling); influence of haematocrit. The recommendations are based on published data in peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion.

International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations for collection of blood samples for coagulation testing.

This guidance document has been prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH). The aim of the document is to provide guidance and recommendations for collection of blood samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories throughout the world. The following processes will be covered: ordering tests, sample collection tube and anticoagulant, patient preparation, sample collection device, venous stasis before sample collection, order of draw when different sample types need to be collected, sample labelling, blood-to-anticoagulant ratio (tube filling) and influence of haematocrit. The following areas are excluded from this document, but are included in an associated ICSH document addressing processing of samples for coagulation tests in clinical laboratories: sample transport and primary tube sample stability; centrifugation; interfering substances including haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia; secondary aliquots-transport and storage; and preanalytical variables for platelet function testing. The recommendations are based on published data in peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion.

Follow-Up SARS-CoV-2 PCR Testing Outcomes From a Large Reference Lab in the US.

By analyzing COVID-19 sequential COVID-19 test results of patients across the United States, we herein attempt to quantify some of the observations we've made around long-term infection (and false-positive rates), as well as provide observations on the uncertainty of sampling variability and other dynamics of COVID-19 infection in the United States. Retrospective cohort study of a registry of RT-PCR testing results for all patients tested at any of the reference labs operated by Labcorp® including both positive, negative, and inconclusive results, from March 1, 2020 to January 28, 2021, including patients from all 50 states and outlying US territories. The study included 22 million patients with RT-PCR qualitative test results for SARS-CoV-2, of which 3.9 million had more than one test at Labcorp. We observed a minuscule <0.1% basal positive rate for follow up tests >115 days, which could account for false positives, long-haulers, and/or reinfection but is indistinguishable in the data. In observing repeat-testing, for patients who have a second test after a first RT-PCR, 30% across the cohort tested negative on the second test. For patients who test positive first and subsequently negative within 96 h (40% of positive test results), 18% of tests will subsequently test positive within another 96-h span. For those who first test negative and then positive within 96 h (2.3% of negative tests), 56% will test negative after a third and subsequent 96-h period. The sudden changes in RT-PCR test results for SARS-CoV-2 from this large cohort study suggest that negative test results during active infection or exposure can change rapidly within just days or hours. We also demonstrate that there does not appear to be a basal false positive rate among patients who test positive >115 days after their first RT-PCR positive test while failing to observe any evidence of widespread reinfection.

A population-based analysis of the longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study aimed to track population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration across the United States using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays. Knowledge of antibody seropositivity and its duration may help dictate post-pandemic planning. METHODS: Using assays to detect antibodies to either nucleocapsid (N) or spike (S) proteins performed on specimens from 39,086 individuals with confirmed positive COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from March 2020 to January 2021, we analyzed nationwide seropositivity rates of IgG up to 300 days following patients' initial positive NAAT test. Linear regression identified trends in seropositivity rates and logistic regression tested positive predictability by age, sex, assay type and days post-infection. FINDINGS: Seropositivity of IgG antibodies to both SARS-CoV-2 S and N-proteins followed a linear trend reaching approximately 90% positivity at 21 days post-index. The rate of N-protein seropositivity declined at a sharper rate, decaying to 68·2% [95% CI: 63·1-70·8%] after 293 days, while S-antibody seropositivity maintained a rate of 87·8% [95% CI: 86·3-89·1%] through 300 days. In addition to antigen type and the number of days post-positive PCR, age and gender were also significant factors in seropositivity prediction, with those under 65 years of age showing a more sustained seropositivity rate. INTERPRETATION: Observational data from a national clinical laboratory, though limited by an epidemiological view of the U.S. population, offer an encouraging timeline for the development and sustainability of antibodies up to ten months from natural infection and could inform post-pandemic planning.

2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Hemostasis Critical Values, Tests, and Reporting.

This guidance document was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH), the aim of which is to provide hemostasis-related guidance documents for clinical laboratories. The current ICSH document was developed by an ad hoc committee, comprising an international collection of both clinical and laboratory experts. The purpose of this ICSH document is to provide laboratory guidance for (1) identifying hemostasis (coagulation) tests that have potential patient risk based on analysis, test result, and patient presentations, (2) critical result thresholds, (3) acceptable reporting and documenting mechanisms, and (4) developing laboratory policies. The basis for these recommendations was derived from published data, expert opinion, and good laboratory practice. The committee realizes that regional and local regulations, institutional stakeholders (e.g., physicians, laboratory personnel, hospital managers), and patient types (e.g., adults, pediatric, surgical) will be additional confounders for a given laboratory in generating a critical test list, critical value thresholds, and policy. Nevertheless, we expect this guidance document will be helpful as a framework for local practice.

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

Treatment of haemophilia A/B patients comprises factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) concentrate replacement therapy, respectively. FVIII and FIX activity levels can be measured in clinical laboratories using one-stage activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based clotting or two-stage chromogenic factor activity assays. We discuss strengths and limitations of these assays, providing examples of clinical scenarios to highlight some of the challenges associated with their current use for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Substantial inter-laboratory variability has been reported for one-stage assays when measuring the activity of factor replacement products due to the wide range of currently available aPTT reagents, calibration standards, factor-deficient plasmas, assay conditions and instruments. Chromogenic activity assays may avoid some limitations associated with one-stage assays, but their regulatory status, perceived higher cost, and lack of laboratory expertise may influence their use. Haemophilia management guidelines recommend the differential application of one or both assays for initial diagnosis and disease severity characterisation, post-infusion monitoring and replacement factor potency labelling. Efficient communication between clinical and laboratory staff is crucial to ensure application of the most appropriate assay to each clinical situation, correct interpretation of assay results and, ultimately, accurate diagnosis and optimal and safe treatment of haemophilia A or B patients.

An update on laboratory assessment for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

The first direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) to be approved for clinical use was dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, in 2010. Since that time, four additional DOACs, all direct anti-Xa inhibitors, have been approved, including rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban and betrixaban. Our knowledge about the effect of DOACs on laboratory testing, as well as the use of the laboratory for measuring DOACs has been an evolving process. These drugs are not routinely monitored in the same fashion as coumadin, but there is an increasing demand on the laboratory to have the capacity to adequately assess DOAC anticoagulant effect (pharmacodynamics) or levels (pharmacokinetics) in either emergent or the routine situations. This manuscript provides an update on laboratory guidance and progress of methods for measuring DOACs.

Understanding the "philosophy" of laboratory hemostasis.

Unlike many other areas of laboratory medicine, laboratory hemostasis has some peculiarities, which makes it one of the most complex diagnostic domains in clinical medicine. The inherent complexity of the hemostasis process, the components of which have not yet been thoroughly unravelled, is mirrored by a large number of hemostasis disturbances, which can involve single or multiple components. Although laboratory diagnostics represents an unavoidable part of the diagnostic reasoning in patients with bleeding or thrombotic disorders, the basic concept beneath the assumption that in many human pathologies, one single test may be sufficient for the diagnosis, does not hold true in hemostasis. There are in fact many aspects that would lead us to conclude that laboratory hemostasis can be considered a very challenging arena for many clinicians and perhaps also for some laboratory professionals. The most challenging aspects typically include the following concepts; that hemostasis is an intricate and multifaceted process, that more than one test is typically needed to achieve a final diagnosis, that results of screening tests depend on many biological factors and do not allow making a final diagnosis, that harmonization of techniques is still an unmet target, and that the calculations used vary widely among laboratories. This article is hence aimed at discussing many of these aspects, with the hope of presenting a useful contribution to better understand the "philosophy" of laboratory hemostasis.

Educational needs of hematologists and laboratory professionals regarding factor activity assays.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis and management of hemophilia require accurate and precise measurements of factor activity levels. Activity is traditionally measured via one-stage (OS) clot-based assay; however, chromogenic substrate (CS) assays may be needed for certain cases. A survey was performed to understand assay-related knowledge gaps among hematologists and laboratory professionals. METHODS: Separate web-based surveys were administered to hematologists who manage hemophilia and to laboratory professionals and queried practice patterns, knowledge of/attitudes toward CS assays, and interest in continuing education. RESULTS: A total of 51 hematologists participated in this study; 67% managed hemophilia patients for ≥10 years and 24% were affiliated with a hemophilia treatment center (HTC). Most (80%) stated familiarity with general assay interpretation. Majorities of non-HTC and HTC respondents agreed that CS assays are more accurate than OS assays (62%/67%), although non-HTC hematologists indicated less understanding of when to order a CS assay (49%/67%). Fewer non-HTC respondents expressed concerns regarding the reliability of OS assays for diagnosis (38%/67%) and monitoring (38%/75%). Most (80%) expressed an interest in factor assay education, especially on available assays, efficacy, and best practices (39%). A total of 57 laboratory professionals participated, averaging 10 years in their current position; most (88%) were hospital based. More performed OS (72%) than CS (10%) or both (17%) assays; only 11% reported confidence with the interpretation of CS results. Few expressed concerns regarding the reliability of OS for diagnosis (9%) or monitoring (12%). Reported barriers to CS use included infrequent need (68%), lack of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (61%), and need for validation work (56%). Most (70%) were interested in CS assay education; top interests included advantages over traditional assays, general information on CS assays, and indications for testing (each 18%). CONCLUSION: Future educational efforts may focus on limitations of OS assays, indications for CS assay diagnosis/monitoring, and support for clinic-laboratory dialog.

International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

This guidance document was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) for providing haemostasis-related guidance documents for clinical laboratories. This inaugural coagulation ICSH document was developed by an ad hoc committee, comprised of international clinical and laboratory direct acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) experts. The committee developed consensus recommendations for laboratory measurement of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban), which would be germane for laboratories assessing DOAC anticoagulation. This guidance document addresses all phases of laboratory DOAC measurements, including pre-analytical (e.g. preferred time sample collection, preferred sample type, sample stability), analytical (gold standard method, screening and quantifying methods) and post analytical (e.g. reporting units, quality assurance). The committee addressed the use and limitations of screening tests such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time as well as viscoelastic measurements of clotting blood and point of care methods. Additionally, the committee provided recommendations for the proper validation or verification of performance of laboratory assays prior to implementation for clinical use, and external quality assurance to provide continuous assessment of testing and reporting method.