Newly developed dilute Russell's viper venom reagents for lupus anticoagulant detection with improved specificity

Saudi expert consensus on acquired hemophilia A diagnosis and management

Objectives

Acquired hemophilia affects approximately one in 1 million people. Timely diagnosis is key to appropriate disease management and the prevention of life-threatening complications. Patients with this condition may initially be seen by inexperienced physicians and remain underdiagnosed for several years. This consensus statement is aimed at providing guidelines for all practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to diagnose and manage acquired hemophilia A.

Methods

This consensus statement reflects the opinions drafted by a group of hematology specialists, who used an explicit systematic process to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.

Results

This consensus statement provides a guide for all practitioners in the KSA regarding the diagnosis of clinical presentation, relevance, characteristics of bleeding symptoms, and case management; it additionally provides guidance for non-specialists. All management aspects, including diagnosis and treatment modalities, are discussed.

Conclusions

Patients with acquired hemophilia may initially be seen by physicians who lack appropriate expertise in diagnosing and managing this condition. This consensus statement from the premier experts on the disease in the KSA provides details for diagnosing and managing acquired hemophilia.

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.

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.

International multicenter, multiplatform study to validate Taipan snake venom time as a lupus anticoagulant screening test with ecarin time as the confirmatory test: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays are compromised in anticoagulated patients, and existing strategies to overcome the interferences have limitations. The prothrombin-activating Taipan snake venom time (TSVT) screening test and ecarin time (ET) confirmatory test are innately insensitive to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (DFXaI).

OBJECTIVES

Validate standardized TSVT/ET reagents for LA detection, in a multicenter, multiplatform study.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Six centers from four countries analyzed samples with TSVT/ET from 81 nonanticoagulated patients with LA, patients with established antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and proven persistent LA who were either not anticoagulated (n = 120) or were anticoagulated with VKAs (n = 180) or DFXaIs (n = 71). Additionally, 339 nonanticoagulated LA-negative patients, and 575 anticoagulated non-APS patients (172 VKA, 403 DFXaI) were tested. Anticoagulant spiking experiments were performed and 112 samples containing potential interferences (i.e., direct thrombin inhibitors) were tested. Results were evaluated against locally derived cutoffs. Imprecision was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cutoffs were remarkably similar despite use of different analyzers and donor populations. Cutoffs for TSVT ratio, ET ratio, percent correction, and normalized TSVT ratio/ET ratio ranged between 1.08 and 1.10, 1.09 and 1.12, 9.3% and 14.8%, and 1.10 and 1.15, respectively. Coefficients of variation for TSVT and ET ratios were ≤5.0%. TSVT/ET exhibited sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 78.2%/95.0%/86.3%/91.5%, respectively, with established APS as the LA-positive population, and 86.9%/95.0%/76.8%/97.4%, respectively, with triple-positive APS. Interference was seen with direct thrombin inhibitors, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins, but not VKAs or DFXaIs.

CONCLUSIONS

TSVT/ET are validated for LA detection in nonanticoagulated patients and those on VKAs or DFXaIs.

DOAC-Stop in lupus anticoagulant testing: Direct oral anticoagulant interference removed in most samples

BACKGROUND

The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is a convenient therapeutic option for patients at risk of thrombosis. DOACs interfere with clot-based testing for the identification of lupus anticoagulant antibodies (LACs) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), a common cause of acquired thrombotic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a commercially available reagent DOAC-Stop for the removal of DOAC interference encountered in LAC testing.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We collected a cohort of 73 test samples from patients on DOAC therapy identified at a large institutional coagulation laboratory from March to December 2019, along with samples from 40 LAC positive and negative control patients not on therapy. Samples were treated with DOAC-Stop and tested for anti-Xa activity and thrombin time for the removal of apixaban, rivaroxaban, argatroban, and dabigatran activity from patient samples. Treated and untreated samples were tested using the activated partial thromboplastin time, silica clotting time, and dilute Russell's viper venom time to evaluate the reliability and utility of DOAC-Stop.

RESULTS

DOAC-Stop markedly reduced DOAC interference from test samples (P < .05). DOAC-Stop had no effect on LAC testing in the absence of DOAC therapy, permitting the identification of all LAC positive and negative controls. DOAC-Stop removed false positives and false negatives resulting from DOAC interference and allows the identification of patients meeting criteria for the diagnosis of APS by LAC testing, as well as the detection of patients on rivaroxaban who are triple positive for APS.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC-Stop is an effective adjunct for the clinical laboratory faced with DOAC interference in LAC testing.

Unveiling the complex effects of direct oral anticoagulants on dilute Russell's viper venom time assays

INTRODUCTION

Dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) assays can be affected by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which may cause false-positive results. However, there are conflicting results indicating significant differences between different reagents and DOACs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of DOACs on dRVVT assays.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Samples were prepared by adding DOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) to pooled normal plasma in the concentration range 0 to 800 µg/L. Six integrated dRVVT reagents were used, all composed of a screen assay (low phospholipid content) and a confirm assay (high phospholipid content). The screen/confirm dRVVT results were expressed as normalized ratios. To further evaluate the observed differences between tests and DOACs, addition of synthetic phospholipids was used.

RESULTS

The dRVVT ratios increased dose dependently for all DOACs, with four of the six tests and the DOAC rivaroxaban having the greatest effect. With one test, the ratios were almost unaffected with increasing DOAC concentration, whereas another test revealed a negative dose dependency for all DOACs. Variable DOAC effects can be explained by different effects on dRVVT screen and confirm clotting time. Adding synthetic phospholipids to samples containing rivaroxaban resulted in greatly reduced screen clotting times and thereby lower calculated dRVVT ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great variability in the dRVVT test result with different DOACs. The dRVVT ratios are unaffected for some reagents and this can be explained by an equal dose-dependent effect on both screen and confirm assays. The phospholipid type and content of the different reagents may contribute to the observed differences.

Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing

High-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) experience increased risk of thrombosis when treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy compared with warfarin. It is essential to establish the APS diagnosis to choose therapy and determine treatment duration. It requires testing for antiphospholipid antibodies, including lupus anticoagulant (LAC). In this viewpoint, we discuss the options for timing of LAC testing, which includes testing before starting anticoagulant treatment (DOAC or warfarin), after switching to heparin or after withdrawal of anticoagulant treatment. DOACs interfere with LAC testing and recommendations emerge stating not to conduct on-therapy LAC testing. All approaches are to some extent currently practised, but have limitations and the area is therefore seemingly a catch 22. We put forward that the anticoagulant effect of DOAC can be eliminated in the laboratory and therefore patients can be tested on-therapy. While it may not eliminate all cases of interference, it could aid the interpretation in these situations and this approach is attractive from the patient and clinician’s perspective. Nevertheless, to prevent misdiagnosis the diagnostic workup for APS requires collaboration between the clinician and the laboratory. We advocate for standardisation in laboratory and clinical practice when diagnosing APS.

Paired APTTs of low and high lupus anticoagulant sensitivity permit distinction from other abnormalities and achieve good lupus anticoagulant detection rates in conjunction with dRVVT

INTRODUCTION

A prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) may be indicative of a specific or multiple factor deficiency, therapeutic anticoagulation, presence of a nonspecific factor inhibitor, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). Recently, pairing of the LA-sensitive APTT and standard APTT reagents, Cephen LS and Cephen, respectively, has been shown to be effective in LA detection. The present study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of this reagent pair for discriminating between causes of APTT elevation and the detection of LA in conjunction with dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT).

METHODS

Plasma samples from 50 normal and 105 non-anticoagulated LA-positive patients in routine dRVVT and/or dilute APTT (dAPTT) via the percent correction formula were employed. Cephen LS/Cephen and dRVVT reagents LA1/LA2 were used to screen/confirm, respectively. Thirty-four symptomatic LA-negative, 25 warfarinised non-antiphospholipid syndrome, 6 coagulation inhibitors, 17 samples with hereditary elevated APTT, and 24 FVIII/IX/XI/XII and 17 FII/V/X artificial single deficiency plasmas were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-three samples out of 105 (31%) were LA-positive in Cephen LS/Cephen. The total percent positivity in Cephen LS/Cephen and LA1/LA2 pairs was 89.1% against samples with the routine dRVVT/dAPTT double positive. The percent corrections of Cephen LS/Cephen in the routine dAPTT/dRVVT positive group were significantly higher than those in all other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The percent correction of the APTT reagent pair showed higher values in LA-positive samples. The combination will be useful with respect to differentiating LA from other abnormal samples and is effective in LA detection when paired with dRVVT.

Anti-phospholipid syndrome: Current opinion on mechanisms involved, laboratory characterization and diagnostic aspects

Anti-phospholipid syndrome is a complex and severe clinical situation, associated with symptoms such as recurrent thrombosis, arterial or venous, at any site, pregnancy loss, and other related syndromes. These clinical burdens, are highly variable from patient to patient, and are associated with biological abnormalities, such as the presence of the Lupus Anticoagulant or phospholipid dependent antibodies, confirmed on two occasions at least 12 weeks apart. From the diagnosis standpoint, both, functional (clotting) or immunological assays, are difficult to standardize and to optimize, due to the absence of reference material, or a characteristic clinical group, and international reference preparations. Large cohort studies are necessary for defining the usefulness of each assay, in terms of specificity, sensitivity, accuracy and for following-up the disease evolution. Clotting assays are based on Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) and diluted Russell Viper Venom Time (dRVVT), performed at low and high phospholipid concentration, or on 1:1 mixtures of tested sample and a normal plasma pool. They allow evaluation of the paradoxal effects of LAs, which are pro-thrombotic in vivo, and anticoagulant in vivo. Use of synthetic phospholipids improves assay specificities and sensitivities, especially in patients treated with anticoagulants. Immunoassays can also be used for testing phospholipid dependent antibodies, first identified and measured as anti-cardiolipin antibodies, but now characterized as targeted to phospholipid cofactor proteins: mainly β2GP1 (which exposes cryptic epitopes upon binding to phospholipids), and in some cases prothrombin, and more rarely Protein S, Factor XIII, Protein Z or Annexin V. Use of optimized assays designed with well-characterized anionic phospholipids, then complexed with highly purified phospholipid cofactor protein (mainly β2GP1), offers a better link between reactivity and clinical associations, than the former assays which were empirically designed with cardiolipin. Standardization also remains complicated due to the absence of international standards and harmonized quantitation units. Validation on large cohorts of negative and positive patients remains the key approach for defining assay performance and clinical usefulness. Laboratory practice for all these methods is now greatly facilitated thanks to the use of automated instruments and dedicated software. Along with clinical criteria, laboratory assays are of great usefulness for identification and confirmation of the anti-phospholipid syndrome and they allow disease follow-up when appropriate patient management is in place.