False-positive lupus anticoagulant results by DRVVT in the presence of rivaroxaban even at low plasma concentrations

16th International congress on antiphospholipid antibodies task force report on antiphospholipid syndrome laboratory diagnostics and trends

Classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) require IgG or IgM isotypes of the anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) antibodies, and/or the lupus anticoagulant (LA) to satisfy the laboratory disease definition. Over the past 20 years, non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) directed to other proteins of the coagulation cascade (i.e. prothrombin and/or phosphatidylserine-prothrombin complex) or to some domains of β2GPI have been proposed. This task force concentrated and reviewed the literature on data including aPS/PT, antibodies to domain 4/5 of β2GPI and the newly described antibodies to protein/HLA-DR complex. In addition, we discussed testing of LA in the 'new' oral anticoagulants' era and the value of triple positivity in the risk assessment of aPL. The conclusions were presented at a special session during the 16th International Congress on aPL, Manchester, UK, September 2019.

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.

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.

Applying index of circulating anticoagulant to mixing tests with lupus anticoagulant screen and confirm reagents can distinguish with high specificity between lupus anticoagulants and direct factor Xa inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are detected by prolongation of clotting times for dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) screening tests. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can interfere with both screening and confirmatory tests. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of direct factor Xa inhibitors (DiXaIs) on screen, confirm and mixing tests and establish a method for differentiation from other sample types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 257 samples including nonanticoagulated LA positive, LA positive with DiXaIs, factor deficiency, FVIII inhibitors, warfarin and non-APS DiXaIs were tested. APTT reagents Cephen LS/Cephen and dRVVT reagents LA1/LA2 were used, respectively, to screen/confirm the study group. Index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) was calculated from clotting times based on the following formula as ICA screening and ICA confirmation. ICA= (1:1 Mix sample - Normal pooled plasma) / Screen patient x 100. An ICA matrix was established which suggested the presence of a DiXaI when both ICA screening and confirmation were above the cut-off. When only ICA screening is elevated, LA is suspected.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the ICA matrix were 52.2% and 92.8% for DiXaIs and 38.1% and 96.7% for LA in APTT, and 61.2% and 92.9% for DiXaIs and 22.2% and 88.4% for LA in dRVVT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ICA matrix achieved high specificity with a lower apparent sensitivity for DiXaI samples comparatively to other devices but due only to less interferences: the matrix could contribute to differentiating DiXaIs from LA in samples where anticoagulation status is unknown.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology position statement on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)

BACKGROUND

The term Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) refers to a group of drugs that inhibit factor Xa or thrombin. Even though their use for treating different thrombotic or prothrombotic conditions is increasing recently, there is no compelling evidence indicating that those medications are safe in all antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients.

METHODOLOGY

To address this issue, specialists from the Antiphospholipid Syndrome Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology performed a comprehensive review of the literature regarding DOACs use in APS to answer the three following questions: (1) potential mechanisms of action of these drugs that could be relevant to APS pathogenesis, (2) DOACs interference on lupus anticoagulant testing, and (3) the efficacy of DOACs in APS.

POSITION STATEMENT

After critically reviewing the relevant evidence, the authors formulated 8 Position Statements about DOACs use in APS.

CONCLUSION

DOACs should not be routinely used in APS patients, especially in those with a high-risk profile (triple positivity to aPL, arterial thrombosis, and recurrent thrombotic events). In addition, DOACs interferes with LA testing, leading to false-positive results in patients investigating APS.

Comparison of real world and core laboratory lupus anticoagulant results from the Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) clinical database and repository

BACKGROUND

Variability remains a challenge in lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing.

OBJECTIVE

To validate LA test performance between Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Core laboratories and examine agreement in LA status between Core and local/hospital laboratories contributing patients to this prospective registry.

METHODS

Five Core laboratories used the same reagents, analyzer type, protocols, and characterized samples for LA validation. Non-anticoagulated registry samples were retested at the corresponding regional Core laboratories and anticoagulated samples at a single Core laboratory. Categorical agreement and discrepancies in LA status between Core and local/hospital laboratories were analyzed.

RESULTS

Clotting times for the reference/characterized plasmas used for normalized ratios were similar between Core laboratories (CV <4%); precision and agreement for LA positive/negative plasma were similar (all CV ≤5%) in the four laboratories that completed both parts of the validation exercise; 418 registry samples underwent LA testing. Agreement for LA positive/negative status between Core and local/hospital laboratories was observed in 87% (115/132) non-anticoagulated and 77% (183/237) anticoagulated samples. However, 28.7% (120/418) of samples showed discordance between the Core and local/hospital laboratories or equivocal LA results. Some of the results of the local/hospital laboratories might have been unreliable in 24.7% (41/166) and 23% (58/252) of the total non-anticoagulated and anticoagulated samples, respectively. Equivocal results by the Core laboratory might have also contributed to discordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratories can achieve good agreement in LA performance by use of the same reagents, analyzer type, and protocols. The standardized Core laboratory results underpin accurate interpretation of APS ACTION clinical data.

Clinical and laboratory practice for lupus anticoagulant testing: An International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee survey

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines have contributed to more uniformity in the performance and interpretation of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing. However, points to reconsider include testing for LA in patients on anticoagulation, cut-off values, and interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization committee (ISTH SSC) questionnaire was to capture the spectrum of clinical and laboratory practice in LA detection, focusing on variability in practice, so that the responses could inform further ISTH SSC recommendations.

METHODS

Members of the ISTH SSC on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies and participants of the Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies Programme of the External quality Control of diagnostic Assays and Tests Foundation were invited to complete a questionnaire on LA testing that was placed on the ISTH website using RedCap, with data tallied using simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There was good agreement on several key recommendations in the ISTH and other guidelines on LA testing, such as sample processing, principles of testing, choice of tests, repeat testing to confirm persistent positivity and the use of interpretative reporting. However, the results highlight that there is less agreement on some other aspects, including the timing of testing in relation to thrombosis or pregnancy, testing in patients on anticoagulation, cut-off values, and calculation and interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some of the variability in practice in LA testing reflects the lack of substantive data to underpin evidence-based recommendations, a more uniform approach, based on further guidance, should reduce the inter-center variability of LA testing.

Lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in patients receiving direct oral FXa inhibitors at trough levels: A real-life study

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral factor Xa inhibitors (xabans) induce false positive results for lupus anticoagulant (LA) diagnosis. Consequently, it is suggested not to perform LA testing in xabans patients although it may be useful in selected patients. In this monocentric study, we evaluated xabans impact at trough levels (ie, just before the next intake) on LA diagnosis in treated patients using dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) and two LA sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).

METHODS

Sixty patients receiving rivaroxaban (30) or apixaban (30) were included. Plasma concentrations were measured using specific anti-Xa assays. LA testing was performed using one dRVVT (LAC-Screening^® /Confirm^® ; Siemens) and two LA sensitive aPTT-based assays (Hemosil^® Silica Clotting Time (SCT) Screen/Confirm; Werfen and Dade^® Actin^® Factor Sensitivity FSL/FS (Actin F); Siemens).

RESULTS

Median [min-max] concentrations were 23 [<18-68] for rivaroxaban and 42 ng/mL [19-99] for apixaban. dRVVT was positive in 93% of rivaroxaban and 40% of apixaban samples. SCT was positive in 40 and 30% and Actin F in 17 and 20% of samples respectively. Xabans affected more significantly dRVVT than aPTT-based assays (P < .001) with less false positive results with apixaban than with rivaroxaban samples irrespective of the assay used.

CONCLUSION

lupus anticoagulant diagnosis in rivaroxaban and apixaban samples drawn at trough levels remains questionable whenever positive results are obtained. If LA testing in apixaban samples might be useful to rule-out LA using dRVVT and/or aPTT-based assays, the wide majority of rivaroxaban samples would give false positive results.

Ménétrier's disease presenting as recurrent unprovoked venous thrombosis: a case report

BACKGROUND

Acquired thrombophilia is a potential sequela of malignancy, chronic inflammation, and conditions characterized by severe protein deficiency (for example, nephrotic syndrome, protein-losing enteropathy). As such, venous thrombosis is often a feature, and occasionally a presenting sign, of systemic disease. Ménétrier's disease is a rare hyperplastic gastropathy that may lead to gastrointestinal protein loss and hypoalbuminemia. To date, reports of venous thrombosis associated with Ménétrier's disease are exceedingly scarce.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the case of a 40-year-old white man who presented with unprovoked deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and renal vein thrombosis. Upon receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, he developed severe gastrointestinal bleeding, and endoscopic evaluation led to a diagnosis of Ménétrier's disease. A laboratory workup revealed deficiency of protein C, protein S, and antithrombin III, as well as markedly elevated levels of factor VIII. He was determined to have an acquired thrombophilia as a direct result of Ménétrier's disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This case describes an acquired thrombophilic state in a patient with Ménétrier's disease and profound hypoalbuminemia. Although this association is rarely described, we discuss the probable mechanisms leading to our patient's thrombosis. Specifically, we posit that his gastrointestinal protein loss led to a deficiency of several anticoagulant proteins and a compensatory elevation in factor VIII, as occurs in nephrotic syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, this patient's recurrent venous thrombosis was the initial clinical sign of his gastrointestinal pathology.