Whole blood impedance aggregometry detects heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a serious complication of heparin use. IgG antibodies to complexes of platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin trigger the clinical manifestations of HIT. Only a subset of these antibodies will activate platelets and these can only be identified with platelet aggregation (functional) assays. Heparin-induced platelet aggregation (HIPA) and (14)C-serotonin release (SRA) assays for HIT are time-consuming and complex to perform. We have developed a whole blood impedance (WBI) test using the new Multiplate analyser. All samples referred to our laboratory over a 10 month period were screened for heparin-PF4 antibodies by an ELISA method (Zymutest HIA IgG). The 4T's score was used to assess HIT pretest probability. Twenty antibody positive samples were further tested by all three functional assays: light transmission aggregometry (LTA), SRA and WBI. Thirteen out of twenty samples were positive by LTA (10 patients) and 15 by WBI (11 patients). SRA, considered to be the gold standard, was used as a confirmatory test and 11 were found to be positive (10 patients); four discrepant samples were weakly positive by WBI. The prevalence of a positive functional test was strongly correlated with the 4T's clinical risk score, but a small number of low-risk patients had positive functional assays. In this study, the WBI assay detected all SRA positive patients and was positive for two others suggesting greater sensitivity. The rapid and easy to perform assay may be a useful tool for haematology laboratories to detect platelet-activating HIT antibodies.

Mis-identification of factor inhibitors by diagnostic haemostasis laboratories: recognition of pitfalls and elucidation of strategies. A follow up to a large multicentre evaluation.

AIMS: We previously reported the ability of diagnostic haemostasis facilities to identify coagulation factor abnormalities and inhibitors, through a large multi-centre study conducted on behalf of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Quality Assurance Program (QAP). In the current report, additional data evaluation aims to (1) help identify the reasons behind the failures in inhibitor identification, (2) highlight the pitfalls in inhibitor testing, and (3) help elucidate some strategies for overcoming these problems and to assist in better identification and characterisation of inhibitors. METHODS: Forty-two laboratories blind tested a set of eight samples for the presence or absence of inhibitors. These included true factor inhibitors (FVIII and FV), and other samples that reflected potential pre-analytical variables (e.g., heparin contamination, serum, EDTA plasma, aged plasma) that might arise and complicate inhibitor detection or lead to false inhibitor identification. RESULTS: There was a wide scatter of inhibitor results, with false positive and false negative inhibitor identification, and mis-identification of inhibitors (e.g., FVIII inhibitor identified where FV inhibitor present). Further analysis of the pattern of reported laboratory results, including routine coagulation testing and factor profiles, allowed some additional interpretative power to provide strategies that will assist laboratories to improve the accuracy of inhibitor identification in the future. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently occasional lapses in factor inhibitor identification, which this report will hopefully help address.

Identification of factor inhibitors by diagnostic haemostasis laboratories: a large multi-centre evaluation.

We have assessed the proficiency of diagnostic haemostasis facilities to correctly identify coagulation factor abnormalities and inhibitors. Forty-two laboratories participating in the external Quality Assurance Program (QAP) conducted by the RCPA agreed to participate and were each sent a set of eight samples (each 3 x 1 ml) for evaluation. They were asked to blind test these samples for the presence or absence of inhibitors, and where identified, to perform further analysis (including specific inhibitor analysis). In order to make the exercise more challenging, in addition to true factor inhibitors, samples were provided that reflected potential pre-analytical variables that might arise and complicate inhibitor detection or lead to false inhibitor identification. In brief, the sample set comprised a true high level factor (F) V inhibitor, a true moderate level FVIII inhibitor (but sample was defibrinogenated), a true lupus anticoagulant (LA), a normal (but slightly aged) plasma sample, a normal serum sample, a normal EDTA sample, an oral anticoagulant/vitamin K deficiency sample, and a gross heparin ( approximately 10 U/ml) contaminated sample. Sixty-three percent of participants correctly identified the true FV inhibitor as such, although the reported range varied greatly [10 to >250 Bethesda units (BU/ml)] and 46% correctly identified the true FVIII inhibitor, despite the complication of the sample presentation, although the reported range also varied (7 to 64 BU/ml). Some laboratories either failed to identify the inhibitor present, or misidentified the inhibitor type. The LA, the oral anticoagulant/vitamin K deficiency, the normal serum sample, and the normal (aged) sample were also correctly identified by most laboratories, as was the absence of specific factor inhibitors in these samples. However, a small subset of laboratories incorrectly identified the presence of specific factor inhibitors in some of these samples. The heparin sample was also correctly identified by most (68%) laboratories. In contrast, the normal EDTA sample was misidentified as a FV and/or FVIII inhibitor by most (68%) laboratories, and only one laboratory correctly identified this as an EDTA sample. Thus, we conclude that although laboratories are able, in most cases, to identify the presence of true factor inhibitors, there is a large variation in identified inhibitor levels and there are also some significant errors in identification (i.e. false negatives and misidentifications). In addition, there is a significant false positive error rate where some laboratories will identify the presence of specific factor inhibitors where no such inhibitor exists (i.e. false positives).

An international survey of current practice in the laboratory assessment of anticoagulant therapy with heparin.

AIMS: We conducted a survey of laboratory practice for assessment of heparin anticoagulant therapy by participants of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPA QAP). METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 646 laboratories enrolled in the Haematology component of the QAP, requesting details of tests used for monitoring heparin therapy. RESULTS: Seventy laboratories (10.8%) returned results that indicated that they performed laboratory monitoring of heparin therapy. Most laboratories (69/70 = 98.6%) use the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) to monitor unfractionated heparin, with eight (11.4%) also using the APTT for monitoring low molecular weight (LMW) heparin. Five (7.1%) laboratories use the thrombin time (TT) test to help monitor heparin therapy and 37 (52.9%) laboratories use an anti-Xa assay to monitor heparin (either LMW or unfractionated). Normal reference ranges (NRR) for APTT differed considerably between laboratories, even those using the same reagent. Therapeutic ranges (TR) also differed considerably between laboratories, for both APTT and the anti-Xa assay. Laboratory differences in NRR and TR using the same reagents could only be partly explained by the use of different instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large variation in current laboratory practice relating to monitoring of heparin anticoagulant therapy. This finding is similar to that of a similar survey conducted by the RCPA QAP almost a decade ago. This study suggests that better standardisation is still required for laboratory monitoring of heparin therapy.

How useful is the monitoring of (low molecular weight) heparin therapy by anti-Xa assay? A laboratory perspective.

We have conducted a series of laboratory-based surveys to assess variability in assay results utilized to monitor heparin anticoagulant therapy. These surveys involved laboratories participating in the Haematology component of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPA QAP). Thirty five of 646 laboratories that were sent a preliminary questionnaire indicated that they performed anti-Xa assays and these laboratories were sent a panel of four plasma samples. These plasma samples contained respectively: (i) no added heparin, (ii) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), enoxaparin, added to a level of approximately .5 U/mL, (iii) unfractionated heparin added to a level of approximately .5 U/mL, and (iv) LMWH added to a level of approximately 1.0 U/mL. Tests to be performed were the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), the thrombin time (TT), fibrinogen, and anti-Xa. As expected, returned results for APTT and TT showed some elevation in heparinized samples while fibrinogen assays were not affected. Anti-Xa assays yielded the following results (median [range]): (i) .01 [0-.11], (ii) .43 [.33-.80], (iii) .23 [.10-.49], and (iv) .90 [.60-1.30]. Thus, although median values were close to those anticipated, there was a wide variation in returned results. In a repeat exercise a few months later laboratories were also asked about their therapeutic ranges (TRs) and provided with an additional vial of LMWH-spiked (1.0 U/mL) plasma labeled as 'heparin-standard' to be used as an assay calibrant. TRs varied substantially between laboratories, from low ranges of .2-.4 to high ranges of .8-1.2. Anti-Xa assay results were similar to those of the first survey: (median [range]): (a) repeat testing: (i) .02 [0-.28], (ii) .47 [.34-.80], (iii) .25 [.14-.58], (iv) .95 [.65-1.31]; (b) repeat testing using survey provided 'heparin-standard': (i) .02 [0-.24], (ii) .55 [.4-.83], (iii) .28 [.10-.63], (iv) 1.00 [.9-1.16]. Thus using the provided 'heparin-standard' yielded lower variability in results for LMWH. In conclusion, the high variability of anti-Xa assay results coupled with the widely variable TRs suggests that therapeutic heparin monitoring is poorly standardized, and this raises some concerns over the clinical value of such monitoring.

Multilaboratory testing of thrombophilia: current and past practice in Australasia as assessed through the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program for Hematology.

We have conducted a series of multilaboratory surveys during the last 6 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the detection of congenital and acquired thrombophilia. For lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, participant laboratories used a panel of tests, including activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; 100% of laboratories), kaolin clotting time (26 to 70%), and Russell's viper venom time (RVVT; 75 to 100%). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for assays ranged from 5 to 40%. RVVT assays appeared to be most sensitive and specific for detection of LA (fewer false-negatives or -positives), although laboratories performed best when they used a panel of tests. For congenital thrombophilia, tests evaluated comprised protein C (PC), protein S (PS), antithrombin (AT), and activated protein C resistance (APCR). Most participant laboratories performed PC using chromogenic (approximately 75%), or clot based (approximately 15%) assays, with few (< 10%) performing antigenic assessments. PS was most often assessed (approximately 60%) by immunological or antigenic assays, usually of free PS, or by functional or clot-based assays (approximately 40%). AT is usually assessed by functional chromogenic assays (approximately 95%). APCR was assessed using aPTT (approximately 50%) or RVVT (approximately 50%) clot-based assays, with the aPTT APCR typically performed using factor V-deficient plasma predilution, but the RVVT APCR typically performed without. Laboratories using the RVVT APCR generally performed better in detection of factor V Leiden-associated APCR, with the aPTT method group yielding higher false-negative and/or false-positive findings (approximately 5% of occasions). Some clot-based PC and PS assays appeared to be influenced by APCR status, and yielded lower apparent PC and PS levels with positive APC resistance. The overall error rate for PC, PS, and AT was approximately 2 to 8% (i.e., false-normal interpretations for deficient plasma or false-abnormal interpretations for normal plasma). The CVs for these assays ranged from 5 to 40%, with highest CVs typically obtained with PS assays.

Factor V inhibitors: rare or not so uncommon? A multi-laboratory investigation.

Acquired deficiencies of, or inhibitors to, factor V are considered rare events. We report a series of 14 acquired factor V deficiencies, 10 of which were confirmed to have inhibitors to factor V, as identified within Australia in the past 5 years following a multi-laboratory investigation. The initial index case seen by one laboratory was followed within 4 months by a separate similar case. This prompted local contact with colleagues (n = 20) working in other haemostasis referral laboratories to identify the current case series. In total, nearly one-half of all haemostasis referral laboratories contacted had seen a case within the past 5 years. Clinical features and the apparent associated risk of bleeding complications generally varied, as did laboratory findings and the likely causal event. There were three females and 11 males. Age ranged from 44 to 95 years (median, 81 years). The level of inhibitor ranged from undetectable to over 250 Bethesda units. The probable cause leading to development of the inhibitors ranged from exposure to bovine thrombin, exposure to antibiotics, surgery and malignancy. Of additional interest was the apparent association of anti-phospholipid antibodies in many of the cases. For example, in the two similar index cases, with factor V inhibitor titres > 200 Bethesda units, high levels of anti-cardiolipin antibodies (> 70 GPL units) were also detected. Although less clear because of inhibitor interference, many of the cases also showed evident co-associated lupus anticoagulant activity. In conclusion, we report a series of factor V inhibitors recently identified within our geographic region that would represent an annual incidence of around 0.29 cases per million Australians. Although considered a rare finding, there is a high likelihood that most haemostasis referral laboratories will see a case every five or so years.