New method to differentiate between lupus anticoagulants, progressive coagulation inhibitors and coagulation factor deficiencies in the mixing tests.
activated partial thromboplastin time
coagulation factor inhibitor
factor deficiencies
lupus anticoagulants
mixing test
Journal
International journal of laboratory hematology
ISSN: 1751-553X
Titre abrégé: Int J Lab Hematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Apr 2024
21 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
21
10
2023
accepted:
05
04
2024
medline:
22
4
2024
pubmed:
22
4
2024
entrez:
21
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Mixing tests in activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are used for the differentiation between lupus anticoagulants (LA), coagulation inhibitors, and factor deficient samples with APTT prolongation. However, the indexes for the differentiation have not been established. The present study aimed to develop new mixing test indexes for the differentiation. Twenty-six LA-positive, 8 progressive coagulation factor VIII inhibitor, and 35 coagulation deficient samples were employed. APTT were measured for normal plasma, patient plasma, and mixing plasma prepared at a ratio of 1:1 proportion in both without incubation and 2 h-incubation. New two parameters named as ALD50 and mixture plasma-patient plasma after Warming change rate Subtraction (WaS) calculated from the clotting times of normal, 1:1 mixing and patient samples with/without 2 h-incubation were established. In the samples with WaS result of <10.2%, ALD50 of ≥87.8%, and < 87.8% were defined as LA and coagulation factor deficiency, respectively, and WaS of ≥10.2% defined progressive coagulation factor inhibitors. Sensitivity and specificity to LA were 80.8% and 93.0% for ALD50, and sensitivity and specificity to progressive coagulation factor inhibitor were 100.0% and 100.0% for WaS, respectively. The agreement between sample classification and WaS-ALD50 was 88.4% (61/69). ALD50 and WaS showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity to LA and progressive coagulation factor inhibitor, respectively. These indexes would be useful for the differentiation between LA, factor deficiency, and progressive coagulation factor inhibitor in the mixing tests.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Peyvandi F, Palla R, Menegatti M, et al. Coagulation factor activity and clinical bleeding severity in rare bleeding disorders: results from the European network of rare bleeding disorders. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10:615‐621.
Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:295‐306.
Moore GW. Testing for lupus anticoagulants. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2022;48:643‐660.
Meroni PL, Borghi MO, Raschi E, Tedesco F. Pathogenesis of antiphospholipid syndrome: understanding the antibodies. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011;7:330‐339.
Pengo V, Tripodi A, Reber G, et al. Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection. Subcommittee on lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibody of the scientific and standardisation Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7:1737‐1740.
Devreese KMJ, de Groot PG, de Laat B, et al. Guidance from the scientific and standardization committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the international society on thrombosis and Haemostasis: update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2828‐2839.
Rosner E, Pauzner R, Lusky A, Modan M, Many A. Detection and quantitative evaluation of lupus circulating anticoagulant activity. Thromb Haemost. 1987;57:144‐147.
Moore GW, Savidge GF. The dilution effect of equal volume mixing studies compromises confirmation of inhibition by lupus anticoagulants even when mixture specific reference ranges are applied. Thromb Res. 2006;118:523‐528.
Chang SH, Tillema W, Scherr D. A "percent correction" formula for evaluation of mixing studies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:62‐73.
Kumano O, Moore GW. Lupus anticoagulant mixing tests for multiple reagents are more sensitive if interpreted with a mixing test‐specific cut‐off than index of circulating anticoagulant. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2017;2:105‐113.
Kumano O, Moore GW. Ruling out lupus anticoagulants with mixing test‐specific cutoff assessment and the index of circulating anticoagulant. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;3:695‐703.
Jennings I, Kitchen S, Kitchen DP, Woods TAL, Walker ID. ISTH/SSC lupus anticoagulant testing guidelines: how far have these been adopted by laboratories? J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9:2117‐2119.
Collins P, Baudo F, Huth‐Kühne A, et al. Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of acquired hemophilia a. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3:161.
Moore GW, Culhane AP, Daw CR, Noronha CP, Kumano O. Mixing test specific cut‐off is more sensitive at detecting lupus anticoagulants than index of circulating anticoagulant. Thromb Res. 2016;139:98‐101.
Kumano O, Ieko M, Naito S, et al. New formulas for mixing test to discriminate between lupus anticoagulant and acquired hemophilia A. Thromb Res. 2016;143:53‐57.
Ip HW, So CC, Leung YYR, Chan JY, Sin P, Lam CKC. Acquired factor VIII inhibitor and positive lupus anticoagulant testing on silica clotting time. Int J Lab Hematol. 2015;37:139‐141.
Tang N, Chen Y, Li D, Yin S. Determining the cutoff value of the APTT mixing test for factor VIII inhibitor. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57:e88‐e90.
Shimomura D, Takata T, Kouno A, et al. Establishment of the WaS‐ALD50 method for novel APTT cross‐mixing test determination. Japanese J Med Technol. 2021;70:613‐621.
Lawrie AS, Kitchen S, Efthymiou M, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ. Determination ofAPTTfactor sensitivity—the misguiding guideline. Int J Lab Hematol. 2013;35:652‐657.
Kumano O, Ieko M, Naito S, et al. Lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in activated partial thromboplastin time mixing test: optimization of the index of circulating anticoagulant cut‐off value. Clin Lab. 2014;60:2115‐2118.
De Kesel PM, Devreese KMJ. Direct oral anticoagulant adsorption: impact on lupus anticoagulant testing‐review of the literature and evaluation on spiked and patient samples. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2003‐2017.
De Kesel PM, Devreese KMJ. The effect of unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, and danaparoid on lupus anticoagulant testing: can activated carbon eliminate false‐positive results? Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;4:161‐168.
Gay J, Duchemin J, Imarazene M, Fontenay M, Jourdi G. Lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in patients receiving direct oral FXa inhibitors at trough levels: a real‐life study. Int J Lab Hematol. 2019;41:738‐744.
Favaloro EJ, Mohammed S, Curnow J, Pasalic L. Laboratory testing for lupus anticoagulant (LA) in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs): potential for false positives and false negatives. Pathology. 2019;51:292‐300.
Tripodi A, Biasiolo A, Chantarangkul V, Pengo V. Lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing: performance of clinical laboratories assessed by a national survey using lyophilized affinity‐purified immunoglobulin with LA activity. Clin Chem. 2003;49:1608‐1614.
Kumano O, Ieko M, Naito S, Yoshida M, Takahashi N. APTT reagent with ellagic acid as activator shows adequate lupus anticoagulant sensitivity in comparison to silica‐based reagent. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10:2338‐2343.
Exner T. Conceptions and misconceptions in testing for lupus anticoagulants. J Autoimmun. 2000;15:179‐183.
Wong RCW, Favaloro EJ. Clinical features, diagnosis, and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;34:295‐304.
Franchini M, Gandini G, Di Paolantonio T, Mariani G. Acquired hemophilia a: a concise review. Am J Hematol. 2005;80:55‐63.