Laboratory Testing for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Antibodies: A Narrative Review

Evolution of Hemostasis Testing: A Personal Reflection Covering over 40 Years of History

There is no certainty in change, other than change is certain. As Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis celebrates 50 years of publication, I felt it appropriate to reflect on my own 40-year plus scientific career. My career in the thrombosis and hemostasis field did not start until 1987, but the subsequent 35 years reflected a period of significant change in associated disease diagnostics. I started in the Westmead Hospital "coagulation laboratory" when staff were still performing manual clotting tests, using stopwatches, pipettes, test tubes, and a water bath, which we transported to the hospital outpatient department to run our weekly warfarin clinic. Several hemostasis instruments have come and gone, including the Coag-A-Mate X2, the ACL-300R, the MDA-180, the BCS XP, and several StaR Evolution analyzers. Some instruments remain, including the PFA-100, PFA-200, the AggRAM, the CS-5100, an AcuStar, a Hydrasys gel system, and two ACL-TOP 750s. We still have a water bath, but this is primarily used to defrost frozen samples, and manual clotting tests are only used to teach visiting medical students. We have migrated across several methodologies in the 45-year history of the local laboratory. Laurel gel rockets, used for several assays in the 1980s, were replaced with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay assays and most assays were eventually placed on automated instruments. Radio-isotopic assays, used in the 1980s, were replaced by an alternate safer method or else abandoned. Test numbers have increased markedly over time. The approximately 31,000 hemostasis assays performed at the Westmead-based laboratory in 1983 had become approximately 200,000 in 2022, a sixfold increase. Some 90,000 prothrombin times and activated partial thromboplastic times are now performed at this laboratory per year. Thrombophilia assays were added to the test repertoires over time, as were the tests to measure several anticoagulant drugs, most recently the direct oral anticoagulants. I hope my personal history, reflecting on the changes in hemostasis testing over my career to date in the field, is found to be of interest to the readership, and I hope they forgive any inaccuracies I have introduced in this reflection of the past.

Thrombotic anti-PF4 immune disorders: HIT, VITT, and beyond

Antibodies against the chemokine platelet factor 4 (PF4) occur often, but only those that activate platelets induce severe prothrombotic disorders with associated thrombocytopenia. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is the prototypic anti-PF4 disorder, mediated by strong activation of platelets through their FcγIIa (immunoglobulin G [IgG]) receptors (FcγRIIa). Concomitant pancellular activation (monocytes, neutrophils, endothelium) triggers thromboinflammation with a high risk for venous and arterial thrombosis. The classic concept of HIT is that anti-PF4/heparin IgG, recognizing antigen sites on (cationic) PF4 that form in the presence of (anionic) heparin, constitute the heparin-dependent antibodies that cause HIT. Accordingly, HIT is managed by anticoagulation with a nonheparin anticoagulant. In 2021, adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines triggered the rare adverse effect "vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia" (VITT), also caused by anti-PF4 IgG. VITT is a predominantly heparin-independent platelet-activating disorder that requires both therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and inhibition of FcγRIIa-mediated platelet activation by high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). HIT and VITT antibodies bind to different epitopes on PF4; new immunoassays can differentiate between these distinct HIT-like and VITT-like antibodies. These studies indicate that (1) severe, atypical presentations of HIT ("autoimmune HIT") are associated with both HIT-like (heparin-dependent) and VITT-like (heparin-independent) anti-PF4 antibodies; (2) in some patients with severe acute (and sometimes chronic, recurrent) thrombosis, VITT-like antibodies can be identified independent of proximate heparin exposure or vaccination. We propose to classify anti-PF4 antibodies as type 1 (nonpathogenic, non- platelet activating), type 2 (heparin dependent, platelet activating), and type 3 (heparin independent, platelet activating). A key concept is that type 3 antibodies (autoimmune HIT, VITT) require anticoagulation plus an adjunct treatment, namely high-dose IVIG, to deescalate the severe anti-PF4 IgG-mediated hypercoagulability state.

Immunologic Effects of Heparin Associated With Hemodialysis: Focus on Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is almost invariably performed with heparin, and thus HD patients are at risk of developing the immune-mediated adverse effect heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), caused by anti-platelet factor 4/heparin IgG, which strongly activates platelets. HIT patients develop hypercoagulability with greatly increased risk of thrombosis, both venous and arterial. Certain HIT-associated complications are more likely to develop among HD patients, including hemofilter thrombosis despite heparin, intravascular catheter and/or arteriovenous fistula-associated thrombosis, post-heparin bolus anaphylactoid/anaphylactic reactions, and thrombotic stroke and acute limb artery thrombosis (reflecting the high frequency of underlying arteriopathy in many patients with renal failure). Management of HIT in HD usually requires use of an alternative (non-heparin) anticoagulant; for example, danaparoid sodium (outside the USA) or argatroban (USA and elsewhere). Whether heparin-grafted hemodialyzers (without systemic heparin) can be used safely in acute HIT is unknown. The HIT immune response is remarkably transient and usually not retriggered by subsequent heparin administration. Accordingly, since renal failure patients often require long-term HD, there may be the opportunity-following seroreversion (loss of platelet-activating HIT antibodies)-to restart heparin for HD, a practice that appears to have a low likelihood of retriggering HIT.

Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT)-Insights from Clinical Cases, In Vitro Studies and Murine Models

An effective worldwide vaccination campaign started and is still being carried out in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While vaccines are great tools to confront the pandemic, predominantly adenoviral vector-based vaccines can cause a rare severe adverse effect, termed vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT), in about 1 in 100,000 vaccinated individuals. VITT is diagnosed 5-30 days post-vaccination and clinically characterized by thrombocytopenia, strongly elevated D-dimer levels, platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies and thrombosis, especially at atypical sites such as the cerebral venous sinus and/or splanchnic veins. There are striking similarities between heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and VITT. Both are caused by anti-PF4 antibodies, causing platelet and leukocyte activation which results in massive thrombo-inflammation. However, it is still to be determined why PF4 becomes immunogenic in VITT and which constituent of the vaccine triggers the immune response. As VITT-like syndromes are increasingly reported in patients shortly after viral infections, direct virus-PF4 interactions might be most relevant. Here we summarize the current information and hypotheses on the pathogenesis of VITT and address in vivo models, especially murine models for further studies on VITT.

[Thromboembolic diseases from a haemostaseologic point of view]

Venous thromboembolism is one of the most common vascular diseases. Increased thrombin formation together with reduced blood flow create a hypercoagulable environment that induces thrombus formation. Anticoagulants play a pivotal role in the treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism because they effectively interrupt this hypercoagulability. A personalized assessment of the thrombotic risk is essential for planning the duration and intensity of secondary prophylaxis. The occurrence of thrombosis outside a typical risk situation, an atypical localization and a family history of thrombosis indicate a thrombophilic state. In these cases, thrombophilia diagnostics are useful for extended risk assessment. If anti-phospholipid antibodies are detected, the risk of recurrence is particularly increased.