Evaluation of a new nanoparticle-based lateral-flow immunoassay for the exclusion of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)

A machine-learning model for reducing misdiagnosis in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A prospective, multicenter, observational study

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) at the bedside remains challenging, exposing a significant number of patients at risk of delayed diagnosis or overtreatment. We hypothesized that machine-learning algorithms could be utilized to develop a more accurate and user-friendly diagnostic tool that integrates diverse clinical and laboratory information and accounts for complex interactions.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study including 1393 patients with suspected HIT between 2018 and 2021 from 10 study centers. Detailed clinical information and laboratory data were collected, and various immunoassays were conducted. The washed platelet heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA) served as the reference standard.

FINDINGS

HIPA diagnosed HIT in 119 patients (prevalence 8.5%). The feature selection process in the training dataset (75% of patients) yielded the following predictor variables: (1) immunoassay test result, (2) platelet nadir, (3) unfractionated heparin use, (4) CRP, (5) timing of thrombocytopenia, and (6) other causes of thrombocytopenia. The best performing models were a support vector machine in case of the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) and the ELISA, as well as a gradient boosting machine in particle-gel immunoassay (PaGIA). In the validation dataset (25% of patients), the AUROC of all models was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00). Compared to the currently recommended diagnostic algorithm (4Ts score, immunoassay), the numbers of false-negative patients were reduced from 12 to 6 (-50.0%; ELISA), 9 to 3 (-66.7%, PaGIA) and 14 to 5 (-64.3%; CLIA). The numbers of false-positive individuals were reduced from 87 to 61 (-29.8%; ELISA), 200 to 63 (-68.5%; PaGIA) and increased from 50 to 63 (+29.0%) for the CLIA.

INTERPRETATION

Our user-friendly machine-learning algorithm for the diagnosis of HIT (https://toradi-hit.org) was substantially more accurate than the currently recommended diagnostic algorithm. It has the potential to reduce delayed diagnosis and overtreatment in clinical practice. Future studies shall validate this model in wider settings.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH).

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: Updates in pathobiology and diagnosis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome virus (SARS-CoV-2). Vaccines that protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection have been widely employed to reduce the incidence of symptomatic and severe disease. However, adenovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can cause a rare, thrombotic disorder termed vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). VITT often develops in the first 5 to 30 days following vaccination and is characterized by thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in unusual locations (e.g., cerebral venous sinus thrombosis). The diagnosis is confirmed by testing for anti-PF4 antibodies, as these antibodies are capable of platelet activation without any cofactor. It can be clinically challenging to differentiate VITT from a similar disorder called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), since heparin is commonly used in hospitalized patients. VITT and HIT have similar pathobiology and clinical manifestations but important differences in testing including the need for PF4-enhanced functional assays and the poor reliability of rapid immunoassays for the detection of anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. In this review we summarize the epidemiology of VITT; highlight similarities and differences between HIT and VITT; and provide an update on the clinical diagnosis of VITT.

Breast cancer cell-based ELISA: a potential material for better detection of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by newly formed platelet-activating antibodies against complexes formed between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin (H). HIT can result in life-threatening complications; thus, early detection of HIT antibodies is crucial for the treatment of the disease. The enzyme-linked immune absorbance assay (ELISA) for the identification of HIT antibodies is widely used in many laboratories, but in general, this test provides only ∼50% accuracy while other methods show multiple limitations. Here, we developed a new cell-based ELISA to improve the detection of HIT antibodies. Instead of immobilizing PF4 or PF4/H complexes directly onto a plate as in the standard ELISA, we added the complexes on breast cancer cells, i.e., cell line MDA-MB-231, and applied the same protocol for antibody detection. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy and flow cytometry for the characterization of bound complexes, we identified two types of HIT-mimicked antibodies (KKO and 1E12), which were able to differentiate from the non-HIT antibody (RTO). PF4-treated MDA-MB-231 cells allowed binding of HIT-mimicked antibodies better than PF4/H complexes. With human sera, the cell-based ELISA allowed better differentiation of clinically relevant from non-clinically relevant HIT antibodies as compared with the standard ELISA. Our findings provide a potential approach that contributes to the development of better assays for the detection of HIT antibodies.

Comparison of HIT Tests in Patients with COVID-19 and Thrombocytopenia

Thrombosis and coagulopathy have been found to be the most prevalent complications in patients with COVID-19. Thromboprophylaxis to prevent thromboembolic events is recommended for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a known complication of heparin use. This study aimed to determine the incidence of HIT among admitted patients with confirmed COVID-19 by PCR. In this study, two different HIT assays, rapid immunoassay (STic Expert HIT, Stago) and H-PF4 specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Asserachrom^® HPIA – IgG), were performed. Of 200 patients with confirmed COVID-19, we identified 49 patients who met the possibility of HIT (low platelet count and high D-Dimer level). Only five (10.2%) had a positive HIT rapid test. However, none of the tested samples tested positive by ELISA. Thrombosis was reported in two of five (40%) patients. Further extensive studies are required to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of a positive HIT test among patients with COVID-19.

Label-Free Detection and Characterization of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT)-like Antibodies

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibodies (Abs) can mediate and activate blood cells, forming blood clots. To detect HIT Abs, immunological assays with high sensitivity (≥95%) and fast response are widely used, but only about 50% of these tests are accurate as non-HIT Abs also bind to the same antigens. We aim to develop biosensor-based electrical detection to better differentiate HIT-like from non-HIT-like Abs. As a proof of principle, we tested with two types of commercially available monoclonal Abs including KKO (inducing HIT) and RTO (noninducing HIT). Platelet factor 4/Heparin antigens were immobilized on gold electrodes, and binding of antibodies on the chips was detected based on the change in the charge transfer resistance (R _ct). Binding of KKO on sensors yielded a significantly lower charge transfer resistance than that of RTO. Bound antibodies and their binding characteristics on the sensors were confirmed and characterized by complementary techniques. Analysis of thermal kinetics showed that RTO bonds are more stable than those of KKO, whereas KKO exhibited a higher negative ζ potential than RTO. These different characteristics made it possible to electrically differentiate these two types of antibodies. Our study opens a new avenue for the development of sensors for better detection of pathogenic Abs in HIT patients.

PF4-Dependent Immunoassays in Patients with Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia: Results of an Interlaboratory Comparison

BACKGROUND

 Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCov-19 may rarely lead to vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Antibody-mediated, platelet factor 4 (PF4)-dependent platelet activation appears to resemble a key mechanism in VITT, partially comparable to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The use of PF4/heparin immunoassays has been proposed as part of a diagnostic approach, but their sensitivity has not been established.

METHODS

 Sera from 12 well-defined VITT patients were first studied by two different laboratories in functional assays. Sera where then used for an interlaboratory comparison, in which five different PF4/heparin immunoassays were used by four laboratories.

RESULTS

 Results for functional testing were highly concordant. VITT antibodies were also reliably detected by PF4/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (92-100%). In contrast, only 25% of VITT antibodies were reactive in a particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA), and 8% in a lateral flow assay (LFA). An automated chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) was negative for all sera tested (0%).

CONCLUSION

 It seems feasible to establish functional antibody testing for the confirmation of VITT. For the initial screening of suspected VITT cases, PaGIA, LFA, and CLIA are useless when applied as single tests. Only ELISA-based PF4/heparin immunoassays are sensitive enough to be incorporated in the diagnostic workup. However, a combination of a positive ELISA and a negative CLIA may be useful to identify VITT antibodies in the absence of confirmatory functional assays.

Evaluation of STic Expert® HIT Kit and Its Comparison with ID-PaGIA™ Test in Suspected Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction caused by heparin. HIT occurs due to IgG antibodies directed against heparin-bound platelet factor 4 (PF4). The aim of this study was to evaluate the STic^® Expert HIT for detection of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies in comparison with ID-PaGIA™ kit. The results were further confirmed by Heparin-induced platelet aggregation test (HIPA). A total of 17 patients with a suspected diagnosis of HIT were enrolled. The 4 T scoring of each case was performed. Testing for HIT was carried out by ID-PaGIA™, STic^® Expert HIT, and HIPA. Testing by STic^® Expert HIT test demonstrated positivity in three cases while testing by ID-PaGIA™ test kit revealed four positive cases. Two of these cases were confirmed as HIT by HIPA. The study suggests that STic^® Expert HIT an equally effective test, in combination with the 4T scoring system for detecting/excluding the diagnosis of HIT. A large number of cases are needed for validation.

Clinical and laboratory tests for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

A rapid diagnostic work-up is required in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). However, diagnosis of HIT is challenging due to a number of practical issues and methodological limitations. Many laboratory tests and a few clinical scoring systems are available but the individual characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy of these are hard to appraise. The 4Ts score is a well evaluated clinical assessment tool with the potential to rule out HIT in many patients. Still, it requires experience and is subject to a relevant inter-observer variability. Immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or recently developed rapid assays are able to exclude HIT in a number of patients. But, accuracy of immunoassays differs depending on type of assay, threshold, antibody specificity and even manufacturer. Due to a comparatively low positive predictive value, HIT cannot be confirmed by immunoassays alone. In addition, only some of them are immediately accessible, particularly in small laboratories. While functional assays such as the serotonin release assay (SRA) and the heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA) are considered as gold standard for diagnosis of HIT, they require a highly specialised laboratory. In addition, some of them are not adequately evaluated. In clinical practice, we recommend an integrated diagnostic approach combining not only clinical assessment (the 4Ts score) but immunoassays and functional assays as well. We propose a clear diagnostic algorithm supporting clinical decision-making. Furthermore, we provide an overview of all current laboratory techniques for HIT and discuss diagnostic pathways and strategies to reduce diagnostic errors, and future perspectives.

Functional Assays in the Diagnosis of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia: A Review

A rapid and accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is essential for patient management but remains challenging. Current HIT diagnosis ideally relies on a combination of clinical information, immunoassay and functional assay results. Platelet activation assays or functional assays detect HIT antibodies that are more clinically significant. Several functional assays have been developed and evaluated in the literature. They differ in the activation endpoint studied; the technique or technology used; the platelet donor selection; the platelet suspension (washed platelets, platelet rich plasma or whole blood); the patient sample (serum or plasma); and the heparin used (type and concentrations). Inconsistencies in controls performed and associated results interpretation are common. Thresholds and performances are determined differently among papers. Functional assays suffer from interlaboratory variability. This lack of standardization limits the evaluation and the accessibility of functional assays in laboratories. In the present article, we review all the current activation endpoints, techniques and methodologies of functional assays developed for HIT diagnosis.

Profile of Instrumentation Laboratory's HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-Ab(PF4-H) assay for diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

INTRODUCTION

Immunoassays play an essential role in the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). The objective of this article is to review HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-Ab(PF4-H) (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, MA, USA), a new chemiluminescent immunoassay for HIT. Areas covered: The authors searched the published literature for evaluation studies of HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-Ab(PF4-H) and sought information from the manufacturer. In this paper, the authors discuss the analytical principle and technical aspects of the assay; describe its diagnostic performance in validation studies; report on its reproducibility, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory status; and discuss the implications of the assay on clinical practice and means of integrating it in diagnostic pathways. HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-Ab(PF4-H) is compared with other rapid assays and widely used enzyme-linked immunoassays for the diagnosis of HIT. Expert commentary: HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-Ab(PF4-H) is automatable, can be performed 24 h per day, offers a rapid turnaround time, and appears to have favorable diagnostic accuracy, particularly at thresholds above that listed in the label. These advantages could lead to improved patient outcomes through rapid provision of results at the point of care, enhancing the accuracy of initial diagnosis.

Laboratory Testing Protocols for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) Testing

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) represents a significant high morbidity complication of heparin therapy. The clinicopathological diagnosis of HIT remains challenging for many reasons; thus, laboratory testing represents an important component of an accurate diagnosis. Although there are many assays available to assess HIT, these essentially fall into two categories-(a) immunological assays, and (b) functional assays. The current chapter presents protocols for several HIT assays, being those that are most commonly performed in laboratory practice and have the widest geographic distribution. These comprise a manual lateral flow-based system (STiC), a fully automated latex immunoturbidimetric assay, a fully automated chemiluminescent assay (CLIA), light transmission aggregation (LTA), and whole blood aggregation (Multiplate).

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The platelet factor 4/heparin ELISA has limited specificity for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and frequently does not provide same-day results. Rapid immunoassays (RIs) have been developed which provide results in 30 minutes or less. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RIs for HIT. We searched the literature for studies in which samples from patients with suspected HIT were tested using a RI and a functional assay against which the performance of the RI could be measured. We performed sensitivity analyses of studies that directly compared different RIs with each other and with ELISAs. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each RI were calculated. Twenty-three articles, collectively involving six different RIs, met eligibility criteria. All RIs exhibited high sensitivity (0.96 to 1.00); there was wider variability in specificity (0.68 to 0.94). Specificity of the IgG-specific chemiluminescent assay (IgG-CA) was greater than the polyspecific chemiluminescent assay [0.94 (95 %CI 0.89-0.99) vs 0.82 (0.77-0.87)]. The particle gel immunoassay demonstrated greater specificity than the polyspecific ELISA [0.96 (0.95-0.97) vs 0.91 (0.89-0.92)]. The IgG-CA and lateral flow immunoassay [0.94 (0.91-0.97)] exhibited greater specificity than the IgG-specific ELISA [0.86 (0.82-0.90)]. Given their high sensitivity and rapid turnaround time, RIs are a reliable means of excluding HIT at the point-of-care in patients with low or intermediate clinical probability. Additionally, some RIs have greater specificity than HIT ELISAs. In summary, IgG-specific RIs appear to have improved diagnostic accuracy compared with ELISAs in patients with suspected HIT and may reduce misdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Diagnostic value of immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunoassays are essential in the workup of patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, the diagnostic accuracy is uncertain with regard to different classes of assays, antibody specificities, thresholds, test variations, and manufacturers. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy measures of available immunoassays and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We performed comprehensive literature searches and applied strict inclusion criteria. Finally, 49 publications comprising 128 test evaluations in 15 199 patients were included in the analysis. Methodological quality according to the revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated with the unified model (comprising a bivariate random-effects model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model). Important differences were observed between classes of immunoassays, type of antibody specificity, thresholds, application of confirmation step, and manufacturers. Combination of high sensitivity (>95%) and high specificity (>90%) was found in 5 tests only: polyspecific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with intermediate threshold (Genetic Testing Institute, Asserachrom), particle gel immunoassay, lateral flow immunoassay, polyspecific chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with a high threshold, and immunoglobulin G (IgG)-specific CLIA with low threshold. Borderline results (sensitivity, 99.6%; specificity, 89.9%) were observed for IgG-specific Genetic Testing Institute-ELISA with low threshold. Diagnostic accuracy appears to be inadequate in tests with high thresholds (ELISA; IgG-specific CLIA), combination of IgG specificity and intermediate thresholds (ELISA, CLIA), high-dose heparin confirmation step (ELISA), and particle immunofiltration assay. When making treatment decisions, clinicians should be a aware of diagnostic characteristics of the tests used and it is recommended they estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using clinical scoring tools.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a drug-mediated, prothrombotic disorder caused by immunization against platelet factor 4 (PF4) after complex formation with heparin or other polyanions. After their binding to PF4/heparin complexes on the platelet surface, HIT antibodies are capable of intravascular platelet activation by cross-linking Fcγ receptor IIA leading to a platelet count decrease and/or thrombosis. Diagnosis of HIT is often difficult. This, and the low specificity of the commercially available immunoassays, leads currently to substantial overdiagnosis of HIT. Timing of onset, the moderate nature of thrombocytopenia, and the common concurrence of thrombosis are very important factors, which help to differentiate HIT from other potential causes of thrombocytopenia. A combination of a clinical pretest scoring system and laboratory investigation is usually necessary to diagnose HIT. Although HIT is considered to be a rare complication of heparin treatment, the very high number of hospital inpatients, and increasingly also hospital outpatients receiving heparin, still result in a considerable number of patients developing HIT. If HIT occurs, potentially devastating complications such as life-threatening thrombosis make it one of the most serious adverse drug reactions. If HIT is strongly suspected, all heparin must be stopped and an alternative nonheparin anticoagulant started at a therapeutic dose to prevent thromboembolic complications. However, the nonheparin alternative anticoagulants bear a considerable bleeding risk, especially if given to patients with thrombocytopenia due to other reasons than HIT. While established drugs for HIT are disappearing from the market (lepirudin, danaparoid), bivalirudin, fondaparinux and potentially the new anticoagulants such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban provide new treatment options.

Predictive value of the 4Ts scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The 4Ts is a pretest clinical scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Although widely used in clinical practice, its predictive value for HIT in diverse settings and patient populations is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the predictive value of the 4Ts in patients with suspected HIT. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database, and ISI Web of Science for studies that included patients with suspected HIT, who were evaluated by both the 4Ts and a reference standard against which the 4Ts could be compared. Quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2 criteria. Thirteen studies, collectively involving 3068 patients, fulfilled eligibility criteria. A total of 1712 (55.8%) patients were classified by 4Ts score as having a low probability of HIT. The negative predictive value of a low probability 4Ts score was 0.998 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000) and remained high irrespective of the party responsible for scoring, the prevalence of HIT, or the composition of the study population. The positive predictive value of an intermediate and high probability 4Ts score was 0.14 (0.09-0.22) and 0.64 (0.40-0.82), respectively. A low probability 4Ts score appears to be a robust means of excluding HIT. Patients with intermediate and high probability scores require further evaluation.

How I treat heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a prothrombotic adverse drug effect induced by platelet-activating antibodies against multimolecular complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Diagnosis rests on a clinical assessment of disease probability and laboratory testing. Management involves immediate discontinuation of heparin and initiation of an alternative anticoagulant. Because of the frequency of thrombocytopenia among heparinized patients, the limited specificity of widely available immunoassays, the limited availability of more specific functional assays, and clinicians' fears of missing a case of true disease, overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment have become common. As a result, a substantial number of thrombocytopenic patients are unnecessarily exposed to costly alternative anticoagulants and their attendant risk of bleeding. In this review, we describe not only our approach to the evaluation and management of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, but also the measures we use to minimize misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment of patients without the disease. In addition, we propose areas of investigation for improvement of the diagnosis and management of this potentially fatal disorder.