Clinical significance of the mixing test in laboratory diagnoses of lupus anticoagulant: the fate of the mixing test in integrated lupus anticoagulant test systems

Lupus anticoagulant laboratory diagnosis by applying the 2020 ISTH-SSC guidelines

BACKGROUND

The ISTH-SSC guidelines for lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing recommend using in-house determined cut-off values, pooled normal plasma (PNP) for ratio normalization, and a ratio for the mixing test interpretation. They strongly support the mixing step role in the diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate and compare the LA testing results and interpretations obtained following the ISTH-SSC guidelines or the available alternatives.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Blood samples for LA testing from 462 consecutive patients were evaluated for screening, mixing and confirmatory tests. The analysis focused on the interpretation differences between using (1) the in-house cut-off values versus the manufacturer's cut-off values, (2) a normalized ratio calculated using PNP at each run versus the mean of the reference interval, (3) a normalized ratio versus the index of circulating anticoagulant to interpret the mixing step, and (4) a two-step versus three-step procedure.

RESULTS

LA testing outcomes were comparable when using the in-house and manufacturer's cut-off values. More positive dilute Russell's viper venom (DRVV) time results were obtained with the normalized ratio based on PNP than with the mean of the reference interval. Overall, the mixing test results obtained with the normalized ratio and the index of circulating anticoagulant showed a good agreement. Among the 97 DRVV Screen test-positive samples, 33 and 89 were classified as LA-positive with the 3-step and the 2-step procedure, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The cut-off value used and the way to normalize ratios had a limited impact. Conversely, it is important to understand the mixing test characteristics to maximize its diagnostic potential.

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.

Real-world evidence of lupus anticoagulant testing: simultaneous positivity of diluted Russell's viper venom time and silica clotting time increases thrombotic risk prediction

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is composed of heterogeneous autoantibodies, which have a close association with thrombotic events. Due to its heterogeneity, two methods for increasing sensitivity are recommended for LA. An investigation of the thrombotic risk and anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aB2GPI) antibody profiles was conducted based on the results of using two parallel methods (dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT), silica clotting time (SCT)) in a real world clinical laboratory. Of 5120 patients, 684 patients (13%) were LA positive, and 422 patients (8%) experienced thrombotic events including pregnancy complication. Development of thrombotic events was more likely to occur in patients who were positive for both dRVVT and SCT compared with those who were positive for dRVVT or SCT only. In addition, significantly higher positive rates of aCL and aB2GPI and the persistently positive rate of LA at intervals of 12 weeks or longer were observed in patients who were positive for both dRVVT and SCT compared with those who were positive for dRVVT or SCT only. Considering three laboratory tests (LA, aCL, and aB2GPI), high thrombotic risk was observed for patients with both dRVVT and SCT positive LA results. A report on LA results that divides LA positive into two types (LA-single positive and LA-both positive) may be beneficial to clinicians in detection of high-risk thrombotic patients.

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.

Lupus anticoagulant mixing tests for multiple reagents are more sensitive if interpreted with a mixing test-specific cut-off than index of circulating anticoagulant

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is classified in the antibody family that is recognized as antiphospholipid antibodies. Guidelines for LA detection recommend mixing test interpretation with either a mixing test specific cut-off (MTC) or index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA). We previously evidenced that MTC was superior to ICA in detecting the in vitro inhibition of LA with a single dilute APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) and dRVVT (diluted Russell's viper venom time) pairing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective in the present study was to compare the LA diagnostic effectiveness of MTC and ICA by multiple APTT and dRVVT reagents.

METHODS

One hundred-five samples from non-anticoagulated patients positive for LA in the dilute APTT (dAPTT) and dRVVT reagent pairing employed for diagnostic examination were performed by undiluted and in a 1:1 mix with normal pooled plasma with four additional APTT reagents and another dRVVT reagent (dRVVT B).

RESULTS

Frequencies of MTC and ICA positivity were determined from samples LA positive in undiluted plasma. MTC positivity in mixing test were 63%, 77%, 80%, 84%, 46%, 81%, and 72% in 4 APTT, dAPTT and 2 dRVVT, respectively. ICA positivity were 47%, 67%, 58%, 54%, 42%, 47%, and 29%, respectively. There were no samples of ICA-positive/MTC-negative with any reagent.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that MTC is superior to ICA for LA detection in mixing tests in multiple reagents and reagent types. Although mixing tests may make weak LA samples appear negative, the efficacy of LA detection can be improved by the method to interpret the results.

Testing lupus anticoagulants in a real-life scenario - a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing is challenging. Most data are derived from a well-controlled study environment with potential alterations to daily routines. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the capacity of various LAC screening tests and derived mixing tests to predict a positive result in subsequent confirmation tests in a large cohort of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 5832 individuals, we retrospectively evaluated the accuracy of the aPTT-A, aPTT-LA_screen, aPTT-FS and dRVVT_screen and of their derived mixing tests in detecting a positive confirmation test result within the same blood specimen. The group differences, degree of correlation and the predictive accuracy of LAC coagulation tests were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the Spearman-rank-correlation and by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) analysis. ROC-AUCs were compared with the Venkatraman´s permutation test.

RESULTS

The pre-test probability of patients with clinically suspected LAC was 36% in patients without factor deficiency or anticoagulation therapy. The aPTT-LA_screen showed the best diagnostic accuracy with a ROC-AUC of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82 - 0.86). No clear advantage of the dRVVT-derived mixing test was detectable when compared to the dRVVT_screen (P = 0.829). Usage of the index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) did not improve the diagnostic power of respective mixing tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the parameters evaluated, aPTT-LA_screen and derived mixing test parameters were the most accurate tests. In our study cohort, neither other mixing test nor the ICA presented any further advantage in LAC diagnostics.

Application of different lupus anticoagulant diagnostic algorithms to the same assay data leads to interpretive discrepancies in some samples

BACKGROUND

Gold standard lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays and reference plasmas do not exist and detection is based on inference in a medley of coagulation assays, creating potential for interpretive discrepancies when applying different algorithms.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate discrepancies from applying different algorithms to a common data set.

METHODS

Diagnostic data on 311 non-anticoagulated patients LA-positive by dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and/or dilute activated partial thromboplastin time (dAPTT) assays were employed to compare algorithms. Routine testing applied interpretive criteria from guidelines endorsing classification as LA-positive despite negative mixing tests, after exclusion of other clotting abnormalities. Integrated testing without mixing tests, and the classical algorithm where negative mixing tests preclude confirm tests, were then retrospectively applied to those data.

RESULTS

Initial testing showed 92/311 (29.6%) were LA-positive by dRVVT only, 156/311 (50.1%) by dAPTT only, and 63/311 (20.3%) by both assays. All dAPTT-positive plasmas remained positive with integrated testing but eight dRVVT-positives became negative. Other data suggested they were false-negatives. The classical algorithm altered 52/155 (33.5%) dRVVT and 111/219 (50.7%) dAPTT interpretations to LA-negative because of normal mixing tests, most of which were apparently weak LA in undiluted plasma.

CONCLUSIONS

The classical algorithm improves diagnostic specificity and confidence but risks missing some genuine LA due to false-negative mixing tests. Integrated testing can be diagnostically accurate and logistically efficient but oversimplifies complex cases. Performing mix and confirm in response to an elevated screen with their interpretation based on clinical data, coagulation screens and the LA-assay design offers a potentially valuable option.

Current Controversies in Lupus Anticoagulant Detection

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune, acquired thrombophilia diagnosed when vascular thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity are accompanied by persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are one of the criteria antibodies but calibration plasmas are unavailable and they are detected by inference based on antibody behaviour in a medley of coagulation-based assays. Elevated screening tests suggest the presence of a LA, which is confirmed with mixing tests to evidence inhibition and confirmatory tests to demonstrate phospholipid-dependence. At least two screening tests of different principle must be used to account for antibody heterogeneity and controversy exists on whether assays, in addition to dilute Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time, should be employed. A variety of approaches to raw data manipulation and interpretation attract debate, as does inclusion or exclusion of mixing studies in circumstances where the presence of a LA is already evident from other results. Therapeutic anticoagulation compromises coagulation-based assays but careful data interpretation and use of alternative reagents can detect or exclude LA in specific circumstances, and this aspect of LA detection continues to evolve. This review focuses on the main areas of debate in LA detection.

Mixing studies in lupus anticoagulant testing are required at least in some type of samples

BACKGROUND

According to the ISTH guidelines for lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing, the second step in the three-step procedure (screening, mixing, and confirmation) is the mixing test, which improves the discrimination between the presence of an inhibitor and coagulation factor deficiencies such as those occurring in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

OBJECTIVES

From a retrospective analysis of dilute Russell viper venom (dRVVT) results, we evaluated the impact of the mixing test result on the interpretation of LAC positivity.

METHODS

We interpreted the dRVVT clotting times with and without taking into account the results of the mixing test in a patient population with prolonged screening test (n = 267) with special attention to the patients receiving VKAs.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The number of samples classified as 'LAC positive' differed substantially depending on the method of interpretation; 170 and 235 of 267 samples were classified as LAC positive with the three- and two-step procedure, respectively. Discrepancy between the two-step (without mixing step) and the three-step procedure was due to not including a mixing test and was more pronounced in the VKA patient population. Screen/confirm ratios carried out on a 1:1 mix of patient and normal pooled plasma (NPP) gave a lower incidence of 59 of 267. We advise continuing to perform mixing test to avoid false-positives. In patients with discrepant results between the two- and three-step dRVVT interpretation, mainly observed in VKA-treated patients, we advise retesting of the patients preferable beyond the period of anticoagulant therapy and additional testing for anti-beta2GPI and/or anti-cardiolipin antibodies.

Synergistic Thrombotic Risk of Antibodies Against Phosphatidylserine and Prothrombin and β-2-Glycoprotein I

Background:

Coagulation and anticoagulation systems are good targets of antiphospholipid antibodies. We assessed the contribution of the antiphospholipid antibodies to the thrombotic risk.

Methods:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays on antibodies against phosphatidylserine and prothrombin (PS/PT), protein C, protein S, protein Z, and thrombomodulin were performed in 164 patients who showed positive results for lupus anticoagulant or anticardiolipin antibody.

Results:

Anti-β-2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI) and anti-PS/PT were significant risk factors for thrombotic events ( P < .001, P = .049). However, there was no association between antiprotein C, antiprotein S, antiprotein Z, or antithrombomodulin and thrombosis. Coexistence of anti-β2GPI and anti-PS/PT antibodies was significantly associated with thrombotic events ( P = .001). Interestingly, the absence of both anti-β2GPI and anti-PS/PT antibodies was a significant preventive factor for thrombosis ( P = .003).

Conclusion:

Our data show a lack of association of antiprotein C, antiprotein S, antiprotein Z, and antithrombomodulin antibodies with thrombosis. However, the combination of conventional anti-β2GPI with anti-PS/PT antibody is expected to enhance the predicting power of thrombotic risk.