Overview of Hemostasis and Thrombosis and Contribution of Laboratory Testing to Diagnosis and Management of Hemostasis and Thrombosis Disorders.

Hemostasis is a complex and tightly regulated process whereby the body attempts to maintain a homeostatic balance to permit normal blood flow, without bleeding or thrombosis. When this balance is disrupted, due to trauma or underlying congenital bleeding or thrombotic disorders, clinical intervention may be required. To assist clinicians in diagnosing and managing affected patients, hemostasis laboratories offer an arsenal of tests, both routine (screening) and more specialized (diagnostic). In general, screening assays are used to screen for hemostasis-related disease or to monitor or measure the effect of anticoagulant therapy, which may be applied to treat patients with recent thrombosis or at risk of thrombosis. Diagnostic assays are used to diagnose or exclude specific hemostasis-related diseases, and in some cases, to monitor or measure the effect of anticoagulant therapy, or alternatively procoagulant therapy that may be applied to those at risk of bleeding. This chapter provides an overview of hemostasis and thrombosis with respect to laboratory tests that may be applied to affected patients.

Evaluating errors in the laboratory identification of von Willebrand disease in the real world.

INTRODUCTION: von Willebrand disease (VWD), reportedly the most common bleeding disorder, arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Assessment requires a wide range of tests, including VWF activity and antigen. Appropriate diagnosis including differential identification of qualitative vs quantitative defects has important management implications, but remains problematic for many laboratories and clinicians. METHODS: Data using a large set (n=29) of varied plasma samples comprising both 'quantitative' VWF deficiency ('Type 1 and 3' VWD) vs 'qualitative' defects ('Type 2 VWD') tested in a cross-laboratory setting has been evaluated to assess the ability of real world laboratories to differentially identify these sample types. RESULTS: Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios show different utility in VWD and type identification. VWD identification errors were often linked to high inter-laboratory test variation and result misinterpretation (i.e., laboratories failed to correctly interpret their own test panel findings). Thus, moderate quantitative VWF deficient samples were misinterpreted as qualitative defects on 30/334 occasions (9% error rate); 17% of these errors were due to laboratories misinterpreting their own data, which was instead consistent with quantitative deficiencies. Conversely, whilst qualitative VWF defects were misinterpreted as quantitative deficiencies at a similar error rate (~9%), this was more often due to laboratories misinterpreting their data (~50% of errors). For test-associated errors, ristocetin cofactor was associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was at least twice that using collagen binding. CONCLUSION: These findings in part explain the high rate of errors associated with VWD diagnosis.

Problems and solutions in laboratory testing for hemophilia.

A diagnosis of hemophilia A or hemophilia B begins with clinical assessment of the patient and is facilitated by laboratory testing. The influence of the latter on a diagnosis of hemophilia A or hemophilia B is clear-a diagnosis cannot be made without laboratory confirmation of a deficiency of factor FVIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively. Moreover, the degree of hemophilia severity is specifically characterized by laboratory test results. In turn, patient management, including choice and application of therapies, is influenced by the diagnosis, as well as by identification of respective disease severity. An incorrect diagnosis may lead to inappropriate management and unnecessary therapy, and thus to adverse outcomes. Moreover, identification of factor inhibitors in hemophilia will lead to additional and differential treatments, and incorrect identification of inhibitors or inhibitor levels may also lead to inappropriate management. Problems in hemophilia diagnosis or inhibitor detection can occur at any stage in the clinical diagnosis/laboratory interface, from the "pre-preanalytical" to "preanalytical" to "analytical" to "postanalytical" to "post-postanalytical." This report outlines the various problems in laboratory testing for hemophilia and provides various strategies or solutions to overcome these challenges. Although some outlined solutions are specific to the potential errors related to hemophilia, others are general in nature and can be applied to other areas of laboratory hemostasis. Key to improvement in this area is adoption of best practice by all involved, including clinicians, phlebotomists, and laboratories. Also key is the recognition that such errors may occur, and thus that clinicians should assess laboratory test results in the context of their patient's clinical history and follow-up any potential errors, thus avoid misdiagnoses, by requesting repeat testing on a fresh sample.

External quality assessment of factor VIII inhibitor assays.

Inhibitors to coagulation factors cause prolongation of routine hemostasis laboratory test results and have clinical relevance in the management of congenital and acquired hemophilia patients. Factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors can be either allo-antibodies (in hemophilia A) or auto-antibodies (in acquired hemophilia) directed against FVIII. The most commonly used assays for detecting these inhibitors are the classical Bethesda assay or a modified (Nijmegen) method. Previous laboratory assessments from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia Quality Assurance Program (RCPAQAP) Haematology and other external quality assessment programs have shown wide variability in FVIII inhibitor results and method performance, as well as a significant degree of false-positive and false-negative interpretations. Despite its limitations, the Bethesda assay is still the primary assay used in laboratories for detecting the presence and strength of a FVIII inhibitor. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that this assay is performed well. The current report reviews the most recent findings from the RCPAQAP Haematology, which show there is still a need for better standardization and improvement in the detection of low-level FVIII inhibitors to ultimately provide better clinical management of affected patients.

External quality assurance for heparin monitoring.

Although there is considerable debate regarding the usefulness of laboratory heparin monitoring, these test processes reflect a substantial portion of hemostasis laboratory activity. Accordingly, external quality assurance (EQA) remains an essential component of such testing, and ensures that laboratories provide the best available service for patient management. This report provides an overview of recent and past EQA related to heparin monitoring using data from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Haematology Quality Assurance Program, and heparin-containing plasma samples with concentrations ranging from 0 to 1.4 U/mL. Laboratory tests evaluated comprised activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), thrombin time (TT), fibrinogen, and anti-Xa assays. Results for APTT and TT testing were largely as expected, showing prolongation with increasing concentrations of heparin. Fibrinogen assays were generally unaffected by the presence of therapeutic heparin levels. Although cross-laboratory median values for the anti-Xa assay were close to target values, substantial interlaboratory variation in results, expressed as coefficient of variation (CV), was observed in all exercises conducted over an 8-year period (5 to 28% for low-molecular weight heparin [LMWH] and 19 to 37% for unfractionated heparin). Duplicate samples sent in consecutive surveys resulted in similar median values. The use of a survey-provided standard as assay calibrant improved CVs in earlier surveys, but not in the most recent survey.