Reliability of Lupus Anticoagulant and Anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin Autoantibodies in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Multicenter Study.

Background: Is it well-known that one of the major drawbacks of Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) test is their sensitivity to anticoagulant therapy, due to the coagulation based principle. In this study we aimed to assess the reproducibility of LA testing and to evaluate the performance of solid assay phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies. Methods: We included 60 patients that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (I) diagnosis of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS); (II) patients with thrombosis and (a) inconstant previous LA positivity and/or (b) positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) at low-medium titers [defined as levels of anti-ß2Glycoprotein-I or anticardiolipin (IgG/IgM) 10-30 GPL/MPL] with no previous evidence of LA positivity. aPL testing was performed blindly in 4 centers undertaking periodic external quality assessment. Results: The 60 patients enrolled were distributed as follows: 43 (71.7%) with thrombotic APS, 7 (11.7%) with thrombosis and inconstant LA positivity and 10 (16.7%) with low-medium aPL titers. Categorical agreement for LA among the centers ranged from 0.41 to 0.60 (Cohen's kappa coefficient; moderate agreement). The correlation determined at the 4 sites for aPS/PT was strong, both quantitatively (Spearman rho 0.84) and when dichotomized (Cohen's kappa coefficients = 0.81 to 1.0). Discordant (as defined by lack of agreement in ≥3 laboratories) or inconclusive LA results were observed in 27/60 (45%) cases; when limiting the analysis to those receiving vitamin K antagonist (VKA), the level of discordant LA results was as high as 75%(15/20). Conversely, aPS/PT testing showed an overall agreement of 83% (up to 90% in patients receiving VKA), providing an overall increase in test reproducibility of +28% when compared to LA, becoming even more evident (+65%) when analyzing patients on VKA. In patients treated with VKA, we observed a good correlation for aPS/PT IgG testing (Cohen's kappa coefficients = 0.81-1; Spearman rho 0.86). Conclusion: Despite the progress in the standardization of aPL testing, we observed up to 45% of overall discrepant results for LA, even higher in patients on VKA. The introduction of aPS/PT testing might represent a further diagnostic tool, especially when LA testing is not available or the results are uncertain.

A collaborative study by the Working Group on Hemostasis and Thrombosis of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) on the interference of haemolysis on five routine blood coagulation tests by evaluation of 269 paired haemolysed/non-haemolysed samples.

INTRODUCTION: Haemolysis is the leading cause of sample rejection in laboratory haemostasis. Most studies focused on artificially haemolysed samples. The aim of this study was a prospective assessment of spontaneous haemolysis on haemostasis tests, by comparing results of haemolysed (H) versus new, non-haemolysed (NH) specimens, collected within 4hrs. As new coagulometers can identify interfering substances, visual assessment of haemolysis was also compared with instrumental haemolysis index and stratified in subclasses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty nine paired samples were collected and analysed using ACL TOP750-CTS (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, USA), for prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), D-Dimer (DD), fibrinogen (Fib) and antithrombin (AT). Bias between H and NH was calculated and compared with the respective critical difference (CD). RESULTS: Mean bias was - 0.1 s for PT (P = 0.057), - 1.1 s for aPTT (P < 0.001), 1025 ng/mL for DD (P < 0.001), - 0.04 g/L for Fib (P = 0.258) and 1.4% for AT (P = 0.013). Bias exceeding the CD varied according to the method, with larger differences for aPTT (36.1%) and DD (17.1%) and < 8% for PT, Fib and AT. No correlation emerged between free haemoglobin values and difference in haemostasis tests in H and NH samples for any tests. Moderate/severe haemolysis involved > 95% of samples. The agreement between visual assessment and instrumental evaluation of haemolysis was 0.62. CONCLUSION: Spurious haemolysis deeply influences aPTT and DD, and to a lesser extent AT and Fib. Prothrombin time seems only slightly influenced, suggesting that PT can be accepted also in haemolysed samples. Although a good inter-observer correlation of haemolysis evaluation was found, the instrumental assessment of haemolysis seems recommendable.