The effect of unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, and danaparoid on lupus anticoagulant testing: Can activated carbon eliminate false-positive results?

An update on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the ISTH-SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis is dependent on the accurate detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) remain the cornerstone of the laboratory part of APS diagnosis. In the 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) APS classification criteria, the type of laboratory parameters remain essentially unchanged compared with the updated Sapporo classification criteria, and aCL and aβ2GPI measurement are still restricted to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with moderate and high titer aPL thresholds defined as 40 and 80 Units, respectively, and a cutoff calculated by the 99th percentile has been abandoned. We must differentiate between classification criteria and assessment of aPL in clinical care. Classification criteria are strict and meant for participant inclusion in studies and trials to study homogeneous populations of patients. In contrast, laboratory detection for APS diagnosis in daily practice is broader, meant to diagnose each APS patient to optimize their management. Nowadays, there is increasing use of measurement of aPL by methods other than ELISAs , the semiquantitative reporting of titers is a matter of debate, as well as the role of the isotypes immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA, and the role of other aPL, such as antiphosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) antibodies. Patients diagnosed with the disease may or may not fulfill the classification criteria, and inappropriate use of classification criteria may lead to mis(under)diagnosis. The aim of this guidance, based on literature and expert opinion, is to provide guidance recommendations for laboratory workers and clinicians on routine diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected APS.

New method to differentiate between lupus anticoagulants, progressive coagulation inhibitors and coagulation factor deficiencies in the mixing tests

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Thrombosis in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Current Perspectives and Challenges in Laboratory Testing for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis hinges on identifying antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory testing encompasses lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM, which are included in the APS classification criteria. All the assays needed to detect aPL antibodies have methodological concerns. LA testing remains challenging due to its complexity and susceptibility to interference from anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI exhibit discrepancies between different assays. Antibody profiles aid in identifying the patients at risk for thrombosis through integrated interpretation of all positive aPL tests. Antibodies targeting domain I of β2-glycoprotein and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin antibodies have been evaluated for their role in thrombotic APS but are not yet included in the APS criteria. Detecting these antibodies may help patients with incomplete antibody profiles and stratify the risk of APS patients. The added diagnostic value of other methodologies and measurements of other APS-associated antibodies are inconsistent. This manuscript describes laboratory parameters useful in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS and will concentrate on the laboratory aspects, clinical significance of assays, and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS.

Is lupus anticoagulant testing with dilute Russell's viper venom clotting times reliable in the presence of inflammation?

Background

Testing for lupus anticoagulant (LA) is not recommended in case of inflammation as C-reactive protein (CRP) can interfere in vitro with the phospholipids present in the activated partial thromboplastin time test used to detect an LA. However, the potential interference of an acute phase protein (ie, CRP) in LA testing using the dilute Russell's viper venom (DRVV) test is poorly studied.

Objectives

To study the effect of inflammation, as evidenced by increased CRP levels, on DRVV tests.

Methods

First, a retrospective analysis (2013-2023) was performed: data on all LA workups were retrieved, and the association between CRP levels and DRVV screen, mix, and confirm clotting times was studied. Second, data on DRVV panels and CRP levels were extracted from 2 prospective studies involving intensive care unit patients to study the association between both variables. Third, CRP was added to normal pooled plasma at 6 relevant concentrations (up to 416 mg/L) to study the association between CRP itself and DRVV coagulation times.

Results

In the retrospective analysis, DRVV screen and confirm clotting times significantly increased as CRP increased (increase of 0.11 seconds and 0.03 seconds per 1 mg/L increase of CRP level, respectively). In the prospective analysis, only DRVV screen was prolonged with high CRP levels (increase of 0.06 seconds for a 1 mg/L increase in CRP level); DRVV screen/confirm ratio was also increased with high CRP levels. In vitro, the addition of CRP did not significantly increase any DRVV clotting times.

Conclusion

LA testing should be performed with much caution in the presence of inflammation as it may be associated with prolongation of both activated partial thromboplastin time and DRVV clotting times.

Viewpoint: Lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation in antiphospholipid syndrome

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is a well-established risk factor for the clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Accurate LA detection is an essential prerequisite for optimal diagnosis and management of patients with APS or aPL carriers. Variability remains a challenge in LA testing, with reliable detection influenced by multiple factors, including pre-analytical conditions, anticoagulation treatment, choice of tests and procedures performed, as well as interpretation of results, that can lead to false-positives or negatives. A standardised approach to LA testing, following current guidance, based on published data and international consensus, and with attention to detail, is required to underpin accurate detection of LA. Future work should focus on better characterisation of the nature of LA, which may ultimately lead to improved diagnosis and management of patients with APS and aPL carriers. This article reviews current practice and challenges, providing an overview on detection of LA.

Key Issues at the Forefront of Diagnosis and Testing for Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by antiphospholipid antibodies associated with thrombosis and pregnancy complications. Catastrophic APS is a severe form involving multiple organ systems with a high mortality rate. The pathogenesis involves antiphospholipid antibodies which target phospholipid-binding proteins and damage endothelial cells thus activating coagulation, triggering a pro-thrombotic state. Laboratory tests for antiphospholipid antibody detection include lupus anticoagulant testing in the coagulation laboratory and serological detection of anticardiolipin and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I antibodies. Despite recent updates in the diagnostic criteria for APS the recent decades and our improved knowledge of this disease, there remain several key issues pertaining to diagnosis and testing with potential implications to patient management. Here we briefly review APS pathophysiology, strengths and weaknesses of classification criteria, laboratory challenges leading to test interpretation, and clinical management of this complex condition.

Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three laboratory parameters (the others being antibodies to either cardiolipin or β2-glycoprotein I) that defines this rare but potentially devastating condition. For the search for aCL and aβ2-GP-I, traditionally measured with immunological solid-phase assays (ELISA), several different assays and detection techniques are currently available, thus making these tests relatively reliable and widespread. On the other hand, LA detection is based on functional coagulation procedures that are characterized by poor standardization, difficulties in interpreting the results, and interference by several drugs commonly used in the clinical settings in which LA search is appropriate. This article aims to review the current state of the art and the challenges that clinicians and laboratories incur in the detection of LA.

Removing direct oral factor Xa inhibitor interferences from routine and specialised coagulation assays using a raw activated charcoal product

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. However, DOACs are associated with extensive interference in coagulation assays. Herein, we evaluate raw activated charcoal (AC) as an adsorbent material, to minimise DOAC-associated interferences in routine and specialised coagulation parameters on CS-series analysers (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan).

METHODS

Commercial human-derived non-anticoagulated plasma materials, with or without increasing concentrations of anticoagulant, were assayed for routine and specialised coagulation parameters before and after treatment with AC.

RESULTS

Treatment of non-anticoagulated plasma with raw AC had minimal impact on routine and specialised coagulation parameters available on the CS-series; however, clinically relevant prolongations of certain activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)-based assays were observed after treatment. Furthermore, in apixaban- and rivaroxaban-containing plasma material, AC efficiently adsorbed therapeutic and supratherapeutic DOAC concentrations; and, treatment with raw AC resolved DOAC-associated interferences on all affected routine and specialised coagulation parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, raw AC efficiently adsorbed apixaban and rivaroxaban from human-derived plasma, without significantly affecting the majority of underlying routine and specialised coagulation parameters available on CS-series analysers.

A Successful Pregnancy Outcome After Continued Surveillance of Lupus Anticoagulant Antibodies in a Patient With Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Case Report and Literature Review

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) can be a devastating experience for individuals trying to have children. Various potential causes contribute to the multifactorial pathogenesis of RPL, including chromosomal anomalies, endocrine conditions, autoimmunity, thrombophilias, and infectious agents. Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) offer an unspecific clue to the underlying autoimmune pathogenic etiology of RPL. This case details a 40-year-old female with a history of RPL, fibromyalgia, and ANA positivity, who spontaneously developed lupus anticoagulant antibodies during her second trimester of pregnancy. Although the recommended American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) diagnostic criteria for initiating a thrombophilia evaluation was not formally met, the patient's maintenance of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) throughout her pregnancy may have contributed to the success of the pregnancy. When treating a patient with RPL, consideration of the comprehensive clinical picture should precede the need to strictly adhere to published criteria for using non-proven clinical interventions. A risk-benefit analysis ought to be considered when offering patients additional medications that may come with some risks but could significantly improve the chances of a successful clinical outcome, such as live birth. We aim to provide evidence to promote greater flexibility in guidelines so that a patient's unique autoimmune etiologies of RPL are not overlooked.

The methods for removal of direct oral anticoagulants and heparins to improve the monitoring of hemostasis: a narrative literature review

The assessment of hemostasis is necessary to make suitable decisions on the management of patients with thrombotic disorders. In some clinical situations, for example, during thrombophilia screening, the presence of anticoagulants in sample makes diagnosis impossible. Various elimination methods may overcome anticoagulant interference. DOAC-Stop, DOAC-Remove and DOAC Filter are available methods to remove direct oral anticoagulants in diagnostic tests, although there are still reports on their incomplete efficacy in several assays. The new antidotes for direct oral anticoagulants - idarucizumab and andexanet alfa - could be potentially useful, but have their drawbacks. The necessity to remove heparins is also arising as heparin contamination from central venous catheter or therapy with heparin disturbs the appropriate hemostasis assessment. Heparinase and polybrene are already present in commercial reagents but a fully-effective neutralizer is still a challenge for researchers, thus promising candidates remain in the research phase.

Variability among commercial batches of normal pooled plasma in lupus anticoagulant testing

INTRODUCTION

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing requires normal pooled plasma (NPP) in performing mixing studies and can be used for normalized ratios of clotting times (CTs). The aims were to demonstrate whether significant differences in clotting times between two batches of a same commercial NPP (CRYOcheck™) directly affect NPP-based cut-off values.

METHODS

Diluted Russell Viper venom time (DRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were used for LA testing. Screening, mixing and confirm tests were performed with Stago® instruments and reagents. Two batches of commercial NPP (A1291 and A1301 from CRYOcheck™; frozen) were compared in the determination of cut-off values. Cut-off values were defined as 99th percentile values of 60 healthy donors and compared with Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Cut-off values obtained with the two NPP batches were significantly different for DRVVT (screen normalized ratio: 1.09 vs. 1.24, screen mix: 41.9 s vs. 38.9 s; index of circulating anticoagulant: 5.0 vs. 8.4; all had p-value <.001). On the contrary, no significant differences were observed for aPTT (screen normalized ratio: 1.32 vs. 1.34; p-value = .4068, screen mix: 37.8 s vs. 38.1 s; p-value = .1153) except for index of circulating anticoagulant: 9.6 versus 10.4 (p-value <.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that differences between two commercial NPP batches produced by a same manufacturer influenced LA cut-off values used for mixing studies and normalized ratios. Adequate cut-off setting, taking into account NPP CTs, is important to provide accurate conclusion about the presence or absence of a LA and avoid potential clinical impact.

Lupus Anticoagulant Testing: Taipan Snake Venom Time with Ecarin Time as Confirmatory Test

Testing for lupus anticoagulants (LA) in the presence of therapeutic anticoagulation is largely discouraged because of the risk of false-positive and false-negative results, although the ability to detect LA in this setting can be clinically valuable. Strategies such as mixing tests and anticoagulant neutralization can be effective, but have their own limitations. The prothrombin activators in venoms from Coastal Taipan and Indian saw-scaled viper snakes provide an additional analytical avenue in that they are insensitive to the effects of vitamin K antagonists and inevitably bypass the effects of direct factor Xa inhibitors. Oscutarin C in Coastal Taipan venom is phospholipid- and Ca²⁺-dependent, so the venom is used in a dilute phospholipid design as an LA screening test called the Taipan snake venom time (TSVT). The ecarin fraction of Indian saw-scaled viper venom is cofactor-independent and operates as a prothrombin-activated confirmatory test, the ecarin time, because the absent phospholipid precludes inhibition by LAs. Bypassing all coagulation factors except prothrombin and fibrinogen renders the assays innately more specific than other LA assays, while TSVT as a screening test has good sensitivity to LAs detected in other assays, as well as occasional antibodies unreactive in other assays.

Prevalence and Impact of Lupus Anticoagulant in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of blood coagulation is essential in ECMO patients. We investigated the prevalence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) and its association with coagulation testing and hemostaseologic complications in patients treated with ECMO.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis including adult patients who received ECMO at a medical intensive care unit at the Medical University of Vienna. The primary outcome was the prevalence of LA. Secondary outcomes included conditions associated with LA positivity, rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events, as well as the proportions of aPTT and antiXa measurements within the target range.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2021 193 patients received ECMO, in 62 (32%) of whom LA diagnostics were performed. Twenty-two (35%) patients tested positive. LA positive patients had more frequently received VV ECMO (77.3% vs 34.3%; p = 0.002), were more frequently diagnosed with viral respiratory infections (SARS-CoV2: 45.5% vs 20%; p = 0.041, influenza virus: 22.7% vs 0%; p = 0.003), had a longer ECMO treatment duration (25 vs 10 days; p = 0.011) and a longer ICU stay (48 vs 25 days; p = 0.022), but similar rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events.

Novel Ex Vivo DOAC Removal Methods Reduce Interference in Lupus Anticoagulant Testing

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) interfere in laboratory coagulation testing. The aim here was to study how commercial DOAC removal methods, DOAC Filter^® and DOAC-Stop™, perform to eliminate DOAC concentrations and false positive results in lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing. We acquired 50 patient samples with high concentrations of DOACs: apixaban (n = 18, range 68–572 ng/mL), dabigatran (n = 8, range 47–154 ng/mL), edoxaban (n = 8, range 35–580 ng/mL) and rivaroxaban (n = 16, range 69–285 ng/mL). DOACs were removed ex vivo with either DOAC Filter^® (n = 28) or DOAC-Stop™ (n = 22). Additionally, commercial control and calibrator samples were studied (n = 13 for DOAC Filter^®, n = 14 for DOAC-Stop™). LAC screening was performed before and after DOAC removal. Both DOAC Filter^® and DOAC-Stop™ were effective in removing DOAC concentrations in samples: DOAC concentrations decreased to median of 0 ng/mL (range 0–48 ng/mL). Only one sample had more than residual 25 ng/mL of DOAC (apixaban). Before DOAC removal, 96% (48/50) of patient samples and over 90% (12/13 DOAC Filter^®, 13/14 DOAC-Stop™) of control/calibrator samples were positive in the LAC screening. In patient samples, LAC screening turned negative in 61% (17/28) after DOAC Filter^® and 45% (10/22) after DOAC-Stop™ treatment. All control samples became negative after DOAC removal. In conclusion, DOAC removal ex vivo reduces false positives in LAC screening. DOAC removal halved the need for confirmation or mixing tests- Although a subset of patients would require further testing, DOAC removal reduces unnecessary repeated LAC testing.

An international study on activated partial thromboplastin time prolongation. Part 1: Analytical results

BACKGROUND

Unexpected prolongation of first-line coagulation tests, including activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), should trigger further work-up by performing mixing tests to elucidate the underlying cause, direct further specific testing and clarify their possible clinical impact. The aim of our study was to assess whether methodological diversity has any impact on the APTT mixing test results and their interpretation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two lyophilized plasma samples (case 1: heparin contamination [0.5 IU/mL]; case 2: factor VIII deficiency [0.13 IU/mL]) and their respective fictional clinical cases were sent to European laboratories for APTT measurement and performance of mixing tests. Participants were surveyed about the methodology (reagents, analytical platform, reference ranges), APTT results, mixing test conditions, their classification (normal, equivocal, prolonged) and categorization of the sample (factor deficiency, presence of inhibitor, anticoagulant, unknown).

RESULTS

A total of 269 responses were included. For case 1, all participants reported a prolonged APTT, and 91% obtained no correction in the mixing test, without differences among reagents or analytical platforms. Only 15% of them selected the presence of an anticoagulant as the single cause for the prolongation. For case 2, 99% of participants reported a prolonged APTT, while some heterogeneity in the mixing test results was found. Eighty-six percent of participants selected factor deficiency as the cause for APTT prolongation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most European laboratories obtained valid results for APTT and the subsequent mixing tests, despite using different methodologies. However, their classification could be improved. Therefore, more training and periodic evaluations are recommended to harmonize protocols and ensure proper result classification and categorization.

Testing for Lupus Anticoagulants

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) employed in classification, and by default diagnosis, of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Detection of LA is not via calibrated assays but is based on functional behavior of the antibodies in a medley of coagulation assays. A prolonged clotting time in a screening test is followed by demonstration of phospholipid dependence and inhibitory properties in confirmatory and mixing tests, respectively, which are modifications of the parent screening test. Complications arise because no single screening test is sensitive to every LA, and no test is specific for LA, because they are prone to interference by other causes of elevated clotting times. Several screening tests are available but the pairing of dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) with LA-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is widely used and recommended because it is proven to have good detection rates. Nonetheless, judicious use of other assays can improve diagnostic performance, such as dilute prothrombin time to find LA unreactive with dRVVT and aPTT, and the recently validated Taipan snake venom time with ecarin time confirmatory test that are unaffected by vitamin K antagonist and direct factor Xa inhibitor anticoagulation. Expert body guidelines and their updates have improved harmonization of laboratory practices, although some issues continue to attract debate, such as the place of mixing tests in the medley hierarchy, and areas of data manipulation such as assay cut-offs and ratio generation. This article reviews current practices and challenges in the laboratory detection of LA.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.

International multicenter, multiplatform study to validate Taipan snake venom time as a lupus anticoagulant screening test with ecarin time as the confirmatory test: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays are compromised in anticoagulated patients, and existing strategies to overcome the interferences have limitations. The prothrombin-activating Taipan snake venom time (TSVT) screening test and ecarin time (ET) confirmatory test are innately insensitive to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (DFXaI).

OBJECTIVES

Validate standardized TSVT/ET reagents for LA detection, in a multicenter, multiplatform study.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Six centers from four countries analyzed samples with TSVT/ET from 81 nonanticoagulated patients with LA, patients with established antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and proven persistent LA who were either not anticoagulated (n = 120) or were anticoagulated with VKAs (n = 180) or DFXaIs (n = 71). Additionally, 339 nonanticoagulated LA-negative patients, and 575 anticoagulated non-APS patients (172 VKA, 403 DFXaI) were tested. Anticoagulant spiking experiments were performed and 112 samples containing potential interferences (i.e., direct thrombin inhibitors) were tested. Results were evaluated against locally derived cutoffs. Imprecision was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cutoffs were remarkably similar despite use of different analyzers and donor populations. Cutoffs for TSVT ratio, ET ratio, percent correction, and normalized TSVT ratio/ET ratio ranged between 1.08 and 1.10, 1.09 and 1.12, 9.3% and 14.8%, and 1.10 and 1.15, respectively. Coefficients of variation for TSVT and ET ratios were ≤5.0%. TSVT/ET exhibited sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 78.2%/95.0%/86.3%/91.5%, respectively, with established APS as the LA-positive population, and 86.9%/95.0%/76.8%/97.4%, respectively, with triple-positive APS. Interference was seen with direct thrombin inhibitors, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins, but not VKAs or DFXaIs.

CONCLUSIONS

TSVT/ET are validated for LA detection in nonanticoagulated patients and those on VKAs or DFXaIs.

A Case of Acute Pulmonary Embolus after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Immunization

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is a critical strategy to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been developed in a rapid timeframe to combat the pandemic. While generally safe and effective, rare cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been reported after two adenovirus-based vaccines, the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and the Janssen Ad.26.COV2.S vaccine, as well as after the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Here, we present the case of a patient who developed acute pulmonary emboli (PE) shortly after his second dose of the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We report the results of an extensive thrombophilia workup that was normal except for the identification of positive lupus anticoagulant (LA) signals. It is our goal to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and encourage vaccine adverse event reporting so that clinicians can have a full appreciation and awareness of the possible adverse events related to these critical vaccines.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in critically ill COVID-19 patients with thromboembolism: cause of disease or epiphenomenon?

Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is associated with coagulation dysfunction that predisposes patients to an increased risk for both arterial (ATE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and consequent poor prognosis; in particular, the incidence of ATE and VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients can reach 5% and 31%, respectively. The mechanism of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients is complex and still not completely clear. Recent literature suggests a link between the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) and thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients. However, it remains uncertain whether aPLs are an epiphenomenon or are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease.

Is Lupus Anticoagulant a Significant Feature of COVID-19? A Critical Appraisal of the Literature

The term "lupus anticoagulant (LA)" identifies a form of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) causing prolongation of clotting tests in a phospholipid concentration-dependent manner. LA is one of the laboratory criteria identified in patients with antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS). The presence of LA in patients with APS represents a significant risk factor for both thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. There have been several reports of similarities between some of the pathophysiological features of COVID-19 and APS, in particular the most severe form, catastrophic APS. There have also been many reports identifying various aPLs, including LA, in COVID-19 patients. Accordingly, a very pertinent question arises: "Is LA a feature of COVID-19 pathology?" In this review, we critically appraise the literature to help answer this question. We conclude that LA positivity is a feature of COVID-19, at least in some patients, and potentially those who are the sickest or have the most severe infection. However, many publications have failed to appropriately consider the many confounders to LA identification, being assessed using clot-based assays such as the dilute Russell viper venom time, the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and the silica clotting time. First, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are placed on anticoagulant therapy, and those with prior histories of thrombosis would possibly present to hospital already on anticoagulant therapy. All anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists, heparin (both unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin), and direct oral anticoagulants affect these clot-based assays. Second, C-reactive protein (CRP) is highly elevated in COVID-19 patients, and also associated with severity. CRP can also lead to false-positive LA, particularly with the aPTT assay. Third, persistence of aPL positivity (including LA) is required to identify APS. Fourth, those at greatest risk of thrombosis due to aPL are those with highest titers or multiple positivity. Most publications either did not identify anticoagulation and/or CRP in their COVID-19 cohorts or did not seem to account for these as possible confounders for LA detection. Most publications did not assess for aPL persistence, and where persistence was checked, LA appeared to represent transient aPL. Finally, high titer aPL or multiple aPL positivity were in the minority of COVID-19 presentations. Thus, at least some of the reported LAs associated with COVID-19 are likely to be false positives, and the relationship between the detected aPL/LA and COVID-19-associated coagulopathy remains to be resolved using larger and better studies.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many studies reported high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in patients with COVID-19 raising questions about its true prevalence and its clinical impact on the disease course.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis and a systematic review to examine the prevalence of aPL and its clinical impact in patients with COVID-19.

RESULTS

21 studies with a total of 1159 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the pooled prevalence rate of one or more aPL (IgM or IgG or IgA of anticardiolipin (aCL) or anti-ß2 glycoprotein (anti-ß2 GPI) or antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin, or lupus anticoagulant (LA)) was 46.8% (95% CI 36.1% to 57.8%). The most frequent type of aPL found was LA, with pooled prevalence rate of 50.7% (95% CI 34.8% to 66.5%). Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher prevalence of aCL (IgM or IgG) (28.8% vs 7.10%, p<0.0001) and anti-ß2 GPI (IgM or IgG) (12.0% vs 5.8%, p<0.0001) as compared with non-critically ill patients. However, there was no association between aPL positivity and mean levels of C reactive protein (mean difference was 32 (95% CI -15 to 79), p=0.18), D-dimer (mean difference was 34 (95% CI -194 to 273), p=0.77), mortality (1.46 (95% CI 0.29 to 7.29), p=0.65), invasive ventilation (1.22 (95% CI 0.51 to 2.91), p=0.65) and venous thromboembolism (1.38 (95% CI 0.57 to 3.37), p=0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

aPLs were detected in nearly half of patients with COVID-19, and higher prevalence of aPL was found in severe disease. However, there was no association between aPL positivity and disease outcomes including thrombosis, invasive ventilation and mortality. However, further studies are required to identify the clinical and pathological role of aPL in COVID-19.

DOAC-Stop in lupus anticoagulant testing: Direct oral anticoagulant interference removed in most samples

BACKGROUND

The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is a convenient therapeutic option for patients at risk of thrombosis. DOACs interfere with clot-based testing for the identification of lupus anticoagulant antibodies (LACs) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), a common cause of acquired thrombotic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a commercially available reagent DOAC-Stop for the removal of DOAC interference encountered in LAC testing.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We collected a cohort of 73 test samples from patients on DOAC therapy identified at a large institutional coagulation laboratory from March to December 2019, along with samples from 40 LAC positive and negative control patients not on therapy. Samples were treated with DOAC-Stop and tested for anti-Xa activity and thrombin time for the removal of apixaban, rivaroxaban, argatroban, and dabigatran activity from patient samples. Treated and untreated samples were tested using the activated partial thromboplastin time, silica clotting time, and dilute Russell's viper venom time to evaluate the reliability and utility of DOAC-Stop.

RESULTS

DOAC-Stop markedly reduced DOAC interference from test samples (P < .05). DOAC-Stop had no effect on LAC testing in the absence of DOAC therapy, permitting the identification of all LAC positive and negative controls. DOAC-Stop removed false positives and false negatives resulting from DOAC interference and allows the identification of patients meeting criteria for the diagnosis of APS by LAC testing, as well as the detection of patients on rivaroxaban who are triple positive for APS.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Stop is an effective adjunct for the clinical laboratory faced with DOAC interference in LAC testing.

Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria if persistently present. Progress has been made on the standardization of tests as guidelines on LAC testing and immunological assays for aCL and aβ2GPI are published. However, LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Noncriteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. But, aDI and aPS/PT are not included in the current diagnostic criteria and testing in daily practice is not recommended as these antibodies have no added value in the diagnosis of APS. This review will focus on the technical aspects of the laboratory methods, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

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

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

Management of the thrombotic risk associated with COVID-19: guidance for the hemostasis laboratory

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with extreme inflammatory response, disordered hemostasis and high thrombotic risk. A high incidence of thromboembolic events has been reported despite thromboprophylaxis, raising the question of a more effective anticoagulation. First-line hemostasis tests such as activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, fibrinogen and D-dimers are proposed for assessing thrombotic risk and monitoring hemostasis, but are vulnerable to many drawbacks affecting their reliability and clinical relevance. Specialized hemostasis-related tests (soluble fibrin complexes, tests assessing fibrinolytic capacity, viscoelastic tests, thrombin generation) may have an interest to assess the thrombotic risk associated with COVID-19. Another challenge for the hemostasis laboratory is the monitoring of heparin treatment, especially unfractionated heparin in the setting of an extreme inflammatory response. This review aimed at evaluating the role of hemostasis tests in the management of COVID-19 and discussing their main limitations.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with COVID-19: A relevant observation?

BACKGROUND

High incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients indicates a hypercoagulable state. Hence, exploring the involvement of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in these patients is of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the incidence of criteria (lupus anticoagulant [LAC], anticardiolipin [aCL] immunoglobulin G [IgG]/IgM, antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies [aβ2GPI] IgG/IgM) and noncriteria (anti-phosphatidyl serine/prothrombin [aPS/PT], aCL, and aβ2GPI IgA) aPL in a consecutive cohort of critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, their association with thrombosis, antibody profile and titers of aPL.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Thirty-one consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit were included. aPL were measured at one time point, with part of the aPL-positive patients retested after 1 month.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were single LAC-positive, two triple-positive, one double-positive, one single aCL, and three aCL IgG and LAC positive. Seven of nine thrombotic patients had at least one aPL. Sixteen of 22 patients without thrombosis were aPL positive, amongst them two triple positives. Nine of 10 retested LAC-positive patients were negative on a second occasion, as well as the double-positive patient. Seven patients were aPS/PT-positive associated to LAC. Three patients were aCL and aβ2GPI IgA-positive.

CONCLUSION

Our observations support the frequent single LAC positivity during (acute phase) observed in COVID-19 infection; however, not clearly related to thrombotic complications. Triple aPL positivity and high aCL/aβ2GPI titers are rare. Repeat testing suggests aPL to be mostly transient. Further studies and international registration of aPL should improve understanding the role of aPL in thrombotic COVID-19 patients.

Are antiphospholipid antibodies associated with thrombotic complications in critically ill COVID-19 patients?

•

The prevalence of aPL antibodies is poorly documented in ICU COVID-19 patients.

•

LA based on dRVVT system was positive in 85% of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

•

LA was not associated with thrombotic complications.

•

The prevalence of elevated anticardiolipin IgG/M/anti-beta2-GPI IgG was of 12%.

Lupus anticoagulant detection in anticoagulated patients. Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

BACKGROUND

The laboratory detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in anticoagulated patients represents a challenge and there is no consensus on the types of assays/procedures to be adopted.

OBJECTIVES

This communication of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) aims to give guidance on the procedures to be adopted.

METHODS

Members of the ISTH-SSC on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies reviewed the literature to search for evidence on the most appropriate assays/procedures to be adopted.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants are able to interfere with the tests used for LA detection, giving rise to occasional false-positive or false-negative LA. Some commercial tests include in their composition heparin-neutralizers able to quench unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin up to 1.0 U/mL. LA tests are less affected by low molecular weight heparin, but caution is needed in the interpretation of results. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) may affect LA detection. Dilution of test plasma into pooled normal plasma is not a reliable solution as false-negative or false-positive LA may occur. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) affect LA detection. Hence, it is not recommended to attempt LA detection in those patients. The use of DOAC adsorbents is a promising solution and should be further investigated on LA-positive and LA-negative patient populations. Taipan/Ecarin tests may be a solution for VKAs and anti-FXa DOACs, but independent evidence on their value and standardized kits is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

LA detection during anticoagulation remains a challenge, especially for VKAs. DOAC removal by in vitro addition to plasma of appropriate absorbents is promising.