Laboratory Testing for von Willebrand Factor Collagen Binding (VWF:CB)

The Role of the von Willebrand Factor Collagen-Binding Assay (VWF:CB) in the Diagnosis and Treatment of von Willebrand Disease (VWD) and Way Beyond: A Comprehensive 36-Year History

The von Willebrand factor (VWF) collagen binding (VWF:CB) assay was first reported for use in von Willebrand diagnostics in 1986, by Brown and Bosak. Since then, the VWF:CB has continued to be used to help diagnose von Willebrand disease (VWD) (correctly) and also to help assign the correct subtype, as well as to assist in the monitoring of VWD therapy, especially desmopressin (DDAVP). However, it is important to recognize that the specific value of any VWF:CB is predicated on the use of an optimized VWF:CB, and that not all VWF:CB assays are so optimized. There are some good commercial assays available, but there are also some "not-so-good" commercial assays available, and these may continue to give the VWF:CB "a bad reputation." In addition to VWD diagnosis and management, the VWF:CB found purpose in a variety of other applications, from assessing ADAMTS13 activity, to investigation into acquired von Willebrand syndrome (especially as associated with use of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac assist devices), to assessment of VWF activity in disease states in where an excess of high-molecular-weight VWF may accumulate, and lead to increased (micro)thrombosis risk (e.g., coronavirus disease 2019, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura). The VWF:CB turns 37 in 2023. This review is a celebration of the utility of the VWF:CB over this nearly 40-year history.

Laboratory Testing for von Willebrand Disease Using a Composite Rapid 3-Test Chemiluminescence-Based von Willebrand Factor Assay Panel

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most commonly reported inherited bleeding disorder and may alternatively occur as an acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS). VWD/AVWS develops from defects and/or deficiency in the adhesive plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). VWD/AVWS diagnosis/exclusion remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of VWF defects and the technical limitations of many VWF tests, as well as the VWF test panels (number and type of tests) chosen by many laboratories. Laboratory testing for these disorders utilizes evaluation of VWF level and activity, with activity assessment needing several tests due to the many functions performed by VWF in order to help counteract bleeding. This report explains procedures for evaluating VWF level (antigen; VWF:Ag) and activity by means of a chemiluminescence-based panel. Activity assays comprise collagen binding (VWF:CB) and a ristocetin-based recombinant glycoprotein Ib-binding (VWF:GPIbR) assay that reflects a contemporary alternative to classical ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo). This 3-test VWF panel (Ag, CB, GPIbR [RCo]) reflects the only such composite panel available on a single platform and is performed on an AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory). Certain regional approvals may also allow this 3-test VWF panel to be performed on the BioFlash instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory).

Hemostasis and Thrombosis: An Overview Focusing on Associated Laboratory Testing to Diagnose and Help Manage Related Disorders

Hemostasis is a complex but balanced process that permit normal blood flow, without adverse events. Disruption of the balance may lead to bleeding or thrombotic events, and clinical interventions may be required. Hemostasis laboratories typically offer an array of tests, including routine coagulation and specialized hemostasis assays used to guide clinicians for diagnosing and managing patients. Routine assays may be used to screen patients for hemostasis-related disturbances but may also be used for drug monitoring, measuring efficacy of replacement or adjunctive therapy, and other indications, which may then be used to guide further patient management. Similarly, "specialized" assays are used for diagnostic purposes or may be used to monitor or measure efficacy of a given therapy. This chapter provides an overview of hemostasis and thrombosis, with a focus on laboratory testing that may be used to diagnose and help manage patients suspected of hemostasis- and thrombosis-related disorders.

Automated and Rapid ADAMTS13 Testing Using Chemiluminescence: Utility for Identification or Exclusion of TTP and Beyond

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a prothrombotic condition caused by a significant deficiency of the enzyme, ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13). In the absence of adequate levels of ADAMTS13 (i.e., in TTP), plasma VWF accumulates, in particular as "ultra-large" VWF multimers, and this leads to pathological platelet aggregation and thrombosis. In addition to TTP, ADAMTS13 may be mildly to moderately reduced in a range of other conditions, including secondary thrombotic microangiopathies (TMA) such as those caused by infections (e.g., hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)), liver disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and sepsis, during acute/chronic inflammatory conditions, and sometimes also in COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019)). ADAMTS13 can be detected by a variety of techniques, including ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), FRET (fluorescence resonance energy transfer) and by chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). The current report describes a protocol for assessment of ADAMTS13 by CLIA. This protocol reflects a rapid test able to be performed within 35 min on the AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory), although certain regional approvals may also permit this testing to be performed on a BioFlash instrument from the same manufacturer.

An Overview of Laboratory Testing for ADAMTS13

ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13) is also called von Willebrand factor (VWF) cleaving protease (VWFCP). ADAMTS13 acts to cleave VWF multimers and thus reduce plasma VWF activity. In the absence of ADAMTS13 (i.e., in thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, TTP), plasma VWF can accumulate, in particular as "ultra-large" VWF multimers, and this can lead to thrombosis. Relative deficiencies in ADAMTS13 can also occur in a variety of other conditions, including secondary thrombotic microangiopathies (TMA). Of contemporary interest, COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) may also be associated with relative reduction of ADAMTS13 and also pathological accumulation of VWF, with this likely contributing to the thrombosis risk seen in affected patients. Laboratory testing for ADAMTS13 can assist in the diagnosis of these disorders (i.e., TTP, TMA), as well as in their management, and can be achieved using a variety of assays. This chapter therefore provides an overview of laboratory testing for ADAMTS13 and the value of such testing to assist the diagnosis and management of associated disorders.

Identification of ADAMTS13 Inhibitors in Acquired TTP

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a prothrombotic condition caused by a deficiency of ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13). In turn, ADAMTS13 (also called von Willebrand factor (VWF) cleaving protease (VWFCP)) acts to cleave VWF multimers and thus reduce plasma VWF activity. In the absence of ADAMTS13 (i.e., in TTP), plasma VWF accumulates, in particular as "ultra-large" VWF multimers, and this leads to thrombosis. In most patients with confirmed TTP, ADAMTS13 deficiency is an acquired disorder due to the development of antibodies against ADAMTS13, which either promote clearance of ADAMTS13 from circulation or cause inhibition of ADAMTS13 activity. The current report describes a protocol for assessment of ADAMTS13 inhibitors, being antibodies that inhibit ADAMTS13 activity. The protocol reflects the technical steps that help identify inhibitors to ADAMTS13, whereby mixtures of patient plasma and normal plasma are then tested for residual ADAMTS13 activity in a Bethesda-like assay. The residual ADAMTS13 activity can be assessed by a variety of assays, with a rapid test able to be performed within 35 minutes on the AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory) used as an example in this protocol.

Laboratory Diagnosis of von Willebrand Disease (VWD): Geographical Perspectives

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is reportedly the most common inherited bleeding disorder, and can also arise as an acquired (von Willebrand) syndrome (AVWS). The hemostasis laboratory plays a key role in the diagnosis or exclusion of VWD/AVWS, which may otherwise be suspected due to the patient's clinical (bleeding) history. VWD/AVWS arise from deficiency and/or defects in the adhesive plasma protein, von Willebrand factor (VWF). VWF undertakes various roles within hemostasis, but principally acts within primary hemostasis to anchor platelets to sites of vascular damage, thereby facilitating thrombus formation to arrest bleeding. The diagnosis or exclusion of VWD/AVWS requires laboratory testing for both VWF level and activity, with the latter potentially comprising several of a potential plethora of different assays. Complete diagnosis of VWD also requires the differentiation of VWD type, with six types comprising the current classification (i.e., qualitative [types 2A, 2B, 2M, 2N VWD] vs. quantitative [types 1 and 3 VWD] deficiency/defects). Although appropriate diagnosis and type classification hold important therapeutic consequences, these remain problematic and sometimes elusive for some laboratories to achieve. This report reviews the laboratory aided diagnosis or exclusion of VWD from a geographic perspective, and focuses on the disparities of approaches and methods in different regions of the world. This is primarily done from the perspective of data available from published reports related to external quality assessment (or proficiency testing) from different geographic localities. Moreover, differences in approaches between laboratories may arise due to differential adherence of particular guidelines, as well as regulatory aspects and predominance of local manufacturers and suppliers.

Evaluating Performance of Contemporary and Historical von Willebrand Factor (VWF) Assays in the Laboratory Identification of von Willebrand Disease (VWD): The Australasian Experience

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common bleeding disorder that arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Appropriate diagnosis of VWD, including differential identification of qualitative (types 2A, 2B, 2M, 2N VWD) versus quantitative (types 1 and 3 VWD) defects remains problematic but has important management implications, given differential therapy. Complete assessment for VWD in a patient with a bleeding history requires comprehensive test panels, including VWF activity and antigen. We describe the Australasian experience, using data from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) related to VWF testing in their VWD test module. The RCPAQAP has been providing samples for VWF testing since 1998, representing 25 years of proficiency testing related to VWD diagnosis. A total of 109 samples have been dispatched to participants over these years, with current assessment involving dispatches of two samples (=4 samples) per year. Samples have represented all types of VWD, as well as normal or other samples, including acquired von Willebrand syndrome and plasma VWF concentrates as used in VWD therapy. Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios show different utility in VWD and type identification. In the past 9 years of data capture, a total of 166 errors were identified from a total of 1,839 interpretations, representing a base error rate of 9.0%. Identification errors were highest for type 2 VWD samples (15.3%), intermediate for type 1 VWD samples (7.5%), and lowest for normal samples (2.4%). Errors can be linked to assay limitations, including assay variability and low-level VWF detection limits, as well as laboratory issues (including test result misinterpretation, which accounts for approximately 40% of all errors for type 2 VWD). For test-associated errors, VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbM were associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was up to 10x higher than that using VWF:CB. As a test group, chemiluminescence-based procedures were associated with lowest inter-laboratory variability, best low-level VWF detection (down to <1 U/dL), and least errors overall. These findings inform on reasons behind high rates of errors associated with VWD diagnosis, with some assays and methodologies performing substantially better than others.

Evaluating errors in the laboratory identification of von Willebrand disease using contemporary von Willebrand factor assays

von Willebrand disease (VWD) arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Assessment requires test panels, including VWF activity and antigen. Appropriate diagnosis including differential identification of qualitative versus quantitative defects remains problematic but has important management implications. Data using a large set (n=27) of varied plasma samples comprising both quantitative VWF deficiency ('Type 1 and 3') vs qualitative defects ('Type 2') tested in a cross-laboratory setting have been evaluated to assess contemporary VWF assays for utility to differentially identify sample types. Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios showed different utility in VWD and type identification. Identification errors were linked to assay limitations, including variability, and laboratory issues (e.g., test result misinterpretation). Quantitative deficient (type 1) samples were misinterpreted as qualitative defects (type 2) on 35/467 occasions (7.5% error rate); 11.4% of these errors were due to laboratories misinterpreting their own data, which was instead consistent with quantitative deficiencies. Conversely, qualitative defects were misinterpreted as quantitative deficiencies at a higher error rate (14.3%), but this was more often due to laboratories misinterpreting their data (40% of errors). For test-associated errors, VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbM were associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was many-fold higher than that using VWF:CB. Chemiluminescence ('CLIA') procedures were associated with lowest inter-laboratory variability and errors overall. These findings in part explain the high rate of errors associated with VWD diagnosis. VWF:GPIbM showed a surprisingly high rate of test associated errors, whilst CLIA procedures performed best overall.

How we diagnose 2M von Willebrand disease (VWD): Use of a strategic algorithmic approach to distinguish 2M VWD from other VWD types

INTRODUCTION

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder and caused by an absence, deficiency or defect in von Willebrand factor (VWF). VWD is currently classified into six different types: 1, 2A, 2B, 2N, 2M, 3. Notably, 2M VWD is more often misdiagnosed as 2A or type 1 VWD than properly identified as 2M VWD.

AIM

To describe an algorithmic approach to better ensure appropriate identification of 2M VWD, and reduce its misdiagnosis, as supported by sequential laboratory testing.

METHODS

Comparative assessment of types 1, 2A, 2B and 2M VWD using various laboratory tests, including VWF antigen and several VWF activity assays, plus DDAVP challenge data, ristocetin-induced platelet agglutination (RIPA) data, multimer analysis and genetic testing.

RESULTS

Types 1, 2A, 2B and 2M VWD give characteristic test patterns that can provisionally classify patients into particular VWD types. Notably, type 1 VWD shows low levels of VWF, but VWF functional concordance (VWF activity/Ag ratios >0.6), with both baseline assessment and post-DDAVP. Types 2A, 2B and 2M VWD show VWF functional discordance (low VWF activity/Ag ratio(s)) dependent on the defect, but type 2M separates from 2A/2B VWD based on specific test patterns, especially with collagen binding vs glycoprotein Ib binding assays. RIPA identifies 2B VWD. Multimers separate 2M from 2A/2B.

CONCLUSION

We provide strategies to improve correct diagnosis of VWD, especially focussed on 2M VWD, and which can be used by most diagnostic haemostasis laboratories, reserving genetic analysis (if required) for confirmation.

Navigating the Myriad of von Willebrand Factor Assays

von Willebrand factor (VWF) represents a large and complex adhesive plasma protein whose main function is to provide a bridge between blood platelets and damaged endothelium, and thus facilitate primary hemostasis. VWF also binds to FVIII, preventing early proteolysis, and delivers this cargo to sites of vascular injury, thereby promoting clot formation and secondary hemostasis. An absence, deficiency, or defect in VWF can lead to a bleeding diathesis called von Willebrand disease (VWD), considered the most common inherited bleeding disorder. Contemporary laboratory assays used in VWD diagnosis/exclusion comprise a myriad of assays that identify the quantity (level) of VWF, as well as the multitude of VWF activities. These may use the following test abbreviations: VWF:Ag, VWF:RCo, VWF:CB, VWF:GPIbR, VWF:GPIbM, VWF:FVIIB, VWF:Ab. The current review explains what these assays are, as well as their place in VWD diagnostics.

Comparative assessment of von Willebrand factor multimers vs activity for von Willebrand disease using modern contemporary methodologies

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) is challenging due to heterogeneity of VWD and test limitations. Many von Willebrand factor (VWF) assays are utilized, including antigen (Ag), activity and multimer analysis. Activity assays include ristocetin cofactor using platelets (VWF:RCo) or other particles incorporating recombinant glycoprotein I ('VWF:GPIbR'), or other GPI binding assays using gain-of-function mutations ('VWF:GPIbM'), or collagen binding (VWF:CB).

AIM

To comparatively evaluate modern contemporary VWF activity assays vs VWF multimer analysis using modern contemporary methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several VWF activity assays (VWF:RCo, VWF:GPIbR, VWF:GPIbM, VWF:CB) assessed (typically as a ratio against VWF:Ag) against a new semi-automated procedure for different types of VWD (1, 3, 2A, 2B, 2M), plus control material (n = 580). The evaluation also focussed on relative loss of high and very high molecular weight multimers (HMWM and VHMWM) by densitometric scanning.

RESULTS

All evaluated VWF activity/Ag ratios showed high correlation to the presence/absence of HMWM and VHMWM, although VWF:CB/Ag and VWF:GPIbR/Ag ratios using an automated chemiluminescence method yielded highest correlation coefficients (r = .909 and .874, respectively, for HMWM). Use of the investigative procedure (VHMWM) identified fewer false positives for 'loss' in type 1 VWD.

CONCLUSIONS

This comparative investigation identified that new automated chemiluminescence VWF activity assays best identified relative loss or presence of HMWM and VHMWM according to activity to Ag ratios and an alternative investigative method for identifying VHMWM in multimer testing for a new commercial multimer method may lead to fewer false identifications of HMW loss in type 1 VWD.

Semi-automated von Willebrand factor multimer assay for von Willebrand disease: Further validation, benefits and limitations

INTRODUCTION

Accurate diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) enables effective patient management. von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimer analysis provides useful information regarding VWF multimer structure, thereby aiding VWD subtyping and management; however, historically technically challenging assays have had limited utility. This study evaluates the Sebia Hydrasys Hydragel-11 semi-automated VWF multimer assay and further validates the Hydragel-5 gel system, as primarily pertaining to VWD diagnostics and monitoring of therapy.

METHODS

Provisionally diagnosed (via a reference assay test panel) archived patient samples and prospective test patient samples, including those undergoing desmopressin trial or therapy monitoring, along with commercial and in-house control material and various external quality assessment (EQA) samples, were analysed. VWF multimers were evaluated for presence, loss or partial loss of high molecular weight (HMWM) and intermediate molecular weight (IMWM) multimers by both visual inspection and densitometric scanning, and comparison with reference assay results.

RESULTS

All anticipated multimer patterns were reproduced, with patients generally showing multimer profiles matching expected patterns according to VWD type based on reference test panel 'diagnosis'. Occasional discrepancies were resolved by retesting. The increase in plasma VWF following desmopressin therapy was also clearly demonstrated. Multimer profiles of EQA samples complemented reference test panel results and matched EQA targets. There were some 'technical' limitations noted.

CONCLUSION

This easy to use, standardised, semi-automated multimer analysis system can demonstrate the multimer profile of VWD patients, thus representing an additional laboratory tool for improved diagnosis, thereby facilitating appropriate patient management.

Rare forms of von Willebrand disease

von Willebrand disease (VWD) arises from deficiency and/or defect(s) of plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF). In turn, plasma VWF is an adhesive protein which primarily functions by anchoring platelets to regions of vascular injury, thereby assisting prevention of bleeding. There is a proportional reduction also in Factor VIII, due to the absence of the stabilizing and anti-proteolytic effect that VWF normally exerts. VWD is reportedly the most common inherited bleeding disorder and can be classified into quantitative and qualitative defects, with type 1 and 3 VWD respectively identifying partial and total quantitative deficiency of VWF, and type 2 VWD identifying qualitative defects of VWF. The relative incidence of each subtype of VWD differs according to the locality and the ability of clinicians and laboratories to correctly diagnose and classify cases. In general, type 1 VWD is considered the most common type of VWD, whereas types 2 and 3 represent rarer forms. However, in developing countries, and partly because of consanguinity, type 3 VWD is over-represented. This review primarily focuses on the rarer forms of VWD, which typically comprise types 2 (A, B, M and N) and 3 VWD. The review also mentions type 1 VWD, largely for completeness and comparability, and since purportedly "severe" type 1 VWD, albeit not a formally recognized subtype of type 1 VWD, would represent a relatively "rare" form of VWD.

Postanalytical considerations that may improve the diagnosis or exclusion of haemophilia and von Willebrand disease

von Willebrand disease (VWD) and haemophilia represent the most common inherited or acquired bleeding disorders. However, many laboratories and clinicians may be challenged by their accurate diagnosis or exclusion. Difficulties in diagnosis/exclusion may include analytical issues, where assays occasionally generate an incorrect result (ie representing an analytical error) or have limitations in their measurement range of and/or low analytical sensitivity. Also increasingly recognized is the influence of preanalytical issues on the diagnosis of VWD or haemophilia. Unfortunately, postanalytical considerations are often not well considered in the diagnostic process. Therefore, this narrative review aims to provide an overview of some important postanalytical considerations that may help improve the diagnosis of VWD and haemophilia. This review primarily discusses aspects around reporting of test results. However, we also discuss other less well-recognized postanalytical considerations, including the use of assay ratios to help identify differential diagnoses and then guide further investigation.