Importance of Genotyping in von Willebrand Disease to Elucidate Pathogenic Mechanisms and Variability in Phenotype.

Genotyping is not routinely performed at diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD). Therefore, the association between genetic variants and pathogenic mechanism or the clinical and laboratory phenotype is unknown in most patients, especially in type 1 VWD. To investigate whether genotyping adds to a better understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms and variability in phenotype, we analyzed the VWF gene in 390 well-defined VWD patients, included in the WiN study. A VWF gene variant was found in 155 patients (61.5%) with type 1, 122 patients (98.4%) with type 2, and 14 patients (100%) with type 3 VWD. Forty-eight variants were novel. For each VWF gene variant, the pathogenic mechanisms associated with reduced VWF levels was investigated using the FVIII:C/VWF:Ag and VWFpp/VWF:Ag ratios. In type 1 VWD, reduced synthesis or secretion of VWF was most frequently found in patients with nonsense variants, frameshift variants, and deletions, whereas rapid clearance of VWF was mainly found in patients with missense variants. Furthermore, type 1 VWD patients with and without a VWF gene variant were clearly distinct in their clinical features such as age of diagnosis, laboratory phenotype, and bleeding phenotype. In type 2 VWD, 81% of variants were associated with an increased clearance of VWF. To conclude, we identified the pathogenic mechanisms associated with various VWF gene variants in type 1, 2, and 3 VWD patients. Additionally, major differences in the phenotype of type 1 VWD patients with and without a variant were observed, which may be of importance for clinical management.

Desmopressin response depends on the presence and type of genetic variants in patients with type 1 and type 2 von Willebrand disease.

Patients with type 1 and type 2 von Willebrand disease (VWD) can be treated with desmopressin. Although a previous study has shown that the location of the causative VWF gene variant is associated with desmopressin response in type 1 VWD, the association between variants in the VWF gene and desmopressin response is not yet fully understood. Our primary aim was to compare desmopressin response in type 1 VWD patients with and without a VWF gene variant. Secondly, we investigated whether desmopressin response depends on specific VWF gene variants in type 1 and type 2 VWD. We included 250 patients from the Willebrand in the Netherlands study: 72 type 1 without a VWF gene variant, 108 type 1 with a variant, 45 type 2A, 16 type 2M, and 9 type 2N patients. VWF gene was analyzed with ion semiconductor sequencing and Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification. Complete response to desmopressin was observed in all type 1 VWD patients without a variant, 64.3% of type 1 patients with a variant, and 31.3% of type 2 patients (P < .001). Despite a large interindividual variability in desmopressin response, patients with the same variant had comparable desmopressin responses. For instance, in 6 type 1 patients with exon 4 to 5 deletion, mean VWF activity at 1 hour after desmopressin was 0.81 IU/mL, with a coefficient of variation of 22.9%. In conclusion, all type 1 VWD patients without a VWF gene variant respond to desmopressin. In type 1 and type 2 VWD patients with a VWF variant, desmopressin response highly depends on the VWF gene variants.

Von Willebrand disease type 2M: Correlation between genotype and phenotype.

BACKGROUND: An appropriate clinical diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) can be challenging because of a variable bleeding pattern and laboratory phenotype. Genotyping is a powerful diagnostic tool and may have an essential role in the diagnostic field of VWD. OBJECTIVES: To unravel the clinical and laboratory heterogeneity of genetically confirmed VWD type 2M patients and to investigate their relationship. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed VWD type 2M genetic variant in the A1 or A3 domain of von Willebrand factor (VWF) and normal or only slightly aberrant VWF multimers were selected from all subjects genotyped at the Radboud university medical center because of a high suspicion of VWD. Bleeding scores and laboratory results were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty patients had a clinically relevant genetic variant in the A1 domain. Median bleeding score was 5. Compared with the nationwide Willebrand in the Netherlands study type 2 cohort, bleeding after surgery or delivery was reported more frequently and mucocutaneous bleedings less frequently. Median VWF activity/VWF antigen (VWF:Act/VWF:Ag) ratio was 0.32, whereas VWF collagen binding activity/VWF antigen (VWF:CB/VWF:Ag) ratio was 0.80. Variants in the A3 domain were only found in two patients with low to normal VWF:Act/VWF:Ag ratios (0.45, 1.03) and low VWF:CB/VWF:Ag ratios (0.45, 0.63). CONCLUSION: Genetically confirmed VWD type 2M patients have a relatively mild clinical phenotype, except for bleeding after surgery and delivery. Laboratory phenotype is variable and depends on the underlying genetic variant. Addition of genotyping to the current phenotypic characterization may improve diagnosis and classification of VWD.