Toward harmonized interpretation of anticardiolipin and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibody detection for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome using defined level intervals and likelihood ratios: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Improving harmonization of the clinical interpretation of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I (aß2GPI) antibodies immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is desirable. Likelihood ratios (LRs) with corresponding test-result intervals can identify the power of a test to discriminate between a diseased and nondiseased patient and may be useful for the semiquantitative interpretation of aCL/aß2GPI results. OBJECTIVES: To determine moderate and high thresholds for aCL and aß2GPI IgG/IgM measured with chemiluminescent immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, fluorescence enzyme immunoassay, and multiplex flow immunoassay. METHODS: aCL and aß2GPI antibodies IgG/IgM were determined with 4 solid-phase systems in a case-control study population including 381 APS patients and 727 controls. Interval-specific LRs (IS-LR) were calculated for ranges determined by prespecified specificity and sensitivity levels. Three methods were used for determining thresholds that separated low, moderate, and high positive antibody levels. Interassay agreement was checked with Cohen's kappa statistics. RESULTS: Assay- and antibody-specific thresholds demonstrated increasing IS-LR, reflecting different clinical significance for low, moderate, and high levels, especially for IgG aCL and aß2GPI and in thrombotic APS. IS-LRs per antibody and unit range were comparable across solid-phase platforms resulting in enhanced harmonization of result interpretation. Agreement between assays for identifying high levels was improved by semiquantitative interpretation compared with that by quantitative reporting. CONCLUSION: aCL and aß2GPI IgG/IgM moderate and high thresholds were determined for 4 analytical platforms. Thresholds improve harmonized interpretation of aCL/aß2GPI levels across platforms. The proposed thresholds should be verified in an independent case-control study to check interlaboratory transferability.

Noncriteria antiphospholipid antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by thrombotic manifestations and/or obstetric complications in patients with persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). aPL are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies, but only lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aß2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory classification criteria. Seronegative APS patients are usually defined as patients with the clinical symptoms of APS but who test negative for aPL. The negativity to classic aPL criteria does not exclude the presence of other aPL. Several noncriteria aPL have been identified. Some noncriteria aPL are well studied, such as IgA aCL and aß2GPI, the antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, and the antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI), both latter groups receiving more attention for their role in thrombotic events and pregnancy complications. Other noncriteria aPL that have been studied are antibodies against annexin V, prothrombin, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol, vimentin-cardiolipin complex, anti-protein S/protein C. Measurement of some of these noncriteria aPL (aPS/PT, aDI) is useful in the laboratory work-out of APS in specific situations. We have to differentiate between patients who are positive for noncriteria aPL only, and patients who have both criteria and noncriteria aPL to enable us to study their role in the diagnosis or risk stratification of APS. The research on noncriteria aPL is continually developing as the clinical relevance of these antibodies is not yet fully clarified.

A thrombin-driven neural net diagnoses the antiphospholipid syndrome without the need for interruption of anticoagulation.

ABSTRACT: Thrombosis is an important manifestation of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The thrombin generation (TG) test is a global hemostasis assay, and increased TG is associated with thrombosis. APS is currently diagnosed based on clinical and laboratory criteria, the latter defined as anti-cardiolipin, anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibodies, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). APS testing is often performed after a thrombotic episode and subsequent administration of anticoagulation, which might hamper the interpretation of clotting assays used for LA testing. We set out to develop an artificial neural network (NN) that can diagnose APS in patients who underwent vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, based on TG test results. Five NNs were trained to diagnose APS in 48 VKA-treated patients with APS and 64 VKA-treated controls, using TG and thrombin dynamics parameters as inputs. The 2 best-performing NNs were selected (accuracy, 96%; sensitivity, 96%-98%; and specificity, 95%-97%) and further validated in an independent cohort of VKA-anticoagulated patients with APS (n = 33) and controls (n = 62). Independent clinical validation favored 1 of the 2 selected NNs, with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 94% for the diagnosis of APS. In conclusion, the combined use of TG and NN methodology allowed for us to develop an NN that diagnoses APS with an accuracy of 92% in individuals with VKA anticoagulation (n = 95). After further clinical validation, the NN could serve as a screening and diagnostic tool for patients with thrombosis, especially because there is no need to interrupt anticoagulant therapy.

The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. METHODS: This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard. RESULTS: The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-ß2 -glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versus 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. CONCLUSION: These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. METHODS: This international multidisciplinary initiative included four phases: (1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; (2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; (3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and (4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard. RESULTS: The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into six clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and two laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least three points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria vs the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% vs 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% vs 99%. CONCLUSION: These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Illustrated State-of-the-Art Capsules of the ISTH 2023 Congress.

This year's Congress of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) took place in person in Montréal, Canada, from June 24-28, 2023. The conference, held annually, highlighted cutting-edge advances in basic, translational, population and clinical sciences relevant to the Society. As for all ISTH congresses, we offered a special, congress-specific scientific theme; this year, the special theme was immunothrombosis. Certainly, over the last few years, COVID-19 infection and its related thrombotic and other complications have renewed interest in the concepts of thromboinflammation and immunothrombosis; namely, the relationship between inflammation, infection and clotting. Other main scientific themes of the Congress included Arterial Thromboembolism, Coagulation and Natural Anticoagulants, Diagnostics and Omics, Fibrinolysis and Proteolysis, Hemophilia and Rare Bleeding Disorders, Hemostatic System in Cancer, Inflammation and Immunity, Pediatrics, Platelet Disorders, von Willebrand Disease and Thrombotic Microangiopathies, Platelets and Megakaryocytes, Vascular Biology, Venous Thromboembolism and Women's Health. Among other sessions, the program included 28 State-of-the-Art (SOA) sessions with a total of 84 talks given by internationally recognized leaders in the field. SOA speakers were invited to prepare brief illustrated reviews of their talks that were peer reviewed and are included in this article. These illustrated capsules highlight the major scientific advances with potential to impact clinical practice. Readers are invited to take advantage of the excellent educational resource provided by these illustrated capsules. They are also encouraged to use the image in social media to draw attention to the high quality and impact of the science presented at the Congress.

Multicenter evaluation of light transmission platelet aggregation reagents: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Platelet Physiology.

BACKGROUND: Light transmission aggregation (LTA) is used widely by the clinical and research communities. Although it is a gold standard, there is a lack of interlaboratory harmonization. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess whether sources of activators (mainly adenosine diphosphate [ADP], collagen, arachidonic acid, epinephrine, and thrombin receptor activating peptide6) and ristocetin contribute to poor LTA reproducibility. The secondary objective was to evaluate interindividual variability of results to appreciate the distribution of normal values and consequently better interpret pathologic results. METHODS: An international multicenter study involving 28 laboratories in which we compared LTA results obtained with center-specific activators and a comparator that we supplied. RESULTS: We report variability in the potency (P) of activators in comparison with the comparator. Thrombin receptor activating peptide 6 (P, 1.32-2.68), arachidonic acid (P, 0.87-1.43), and epinephrine (P, 0.97-1.34) showed the greatest variability. ADP (P, 1.04-1.20) and ristocetin (P, 0.98-1.07) were the most consistent. The data highlighted clear interindividual variability, notably for ADP and epinephrine. Four profiles of responses were observed with ADP from high-responders, intermediate-responders, and low-responders. A fifth profile corresponding to nonresponders (5% of the individuals) was observed with epinephrine. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, the establishment and adoption of simple standardization principles should mitigate variability due to activator sources. The observation of huge interindividual variability for certain concentrations of activators should lead to a cautious interpretation before reporting a result as abnormal. Confidence can be taken from the fact that difference between sources is not exacerbated in patients treated with antiplatelet agents.

Survey on antiphospholipid syndrome diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment in patients with ischemic stroke, other brain ischemic injury, or arterial thromboembolism in other sites: communication from ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment of patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)-associated acute ischemic stroke (AIS), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or other brain ischemic injury is poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: The survey goal was to capture variations in diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment of APS-associated ischemic stroke and related disorders to inform guidance and clinical trials to define optimal management. METHODS: Professional colleagues, including key opinion leaders, were invited to complete a REDCap survey questionnaire initiated by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardisation Committee Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies. The survey data were tallied using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There was generally good agreement on several aspects, including which patients to test for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), use of a lifelong vitamin K antagonist for AIS or recurrent TIA, and formal cognitive assessment for suspected cognitive impairment. There was less agreement on other aspects, including aPL testing for brain ischemic injury other than AIS/TIA or if an alternative cause for AIS or TIA exists; choice of aPL tests, their timing, and age cutoff; the aPL phenotype to trigger antithrombotic treatment; management for patent foramen ovale; antithrombotic treatment for first TIA or white matter hyperintensities; head magnetic resonance imaging specifications; and low-molecular-weight heparin dosing/anti-Xa monitoring in pregnancy. The survey highlighted that approximately 25% practice at dedicated APS clinics and <50% have a multidisciplinary team structure for patients with APS. CONCLUSION: Much of the variation in practice reflects the lack of evidence-based recommendations. The survey results should inform the development of a more uniform multidisciplinary consensus approach to diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment.

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Anti-phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Antibodies (aPS/PT).

Since the discovery that antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) bind to a cofactor at the phospholipid membrane, the proteins beta-2-glycoprotein I (ß2GPI) and prothrombin seemed to be the antigens of importance in the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Anti-ß2GPI antibodies (aß2GPI) were soon included in the classification criteria, while anti-prothrombin antibodies (aPT) are still regarded as "non-criteria" aPL. Evidence is accumulating that antibodies against prothrombin are clinically relevant and closely associated with APS and the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA). Among the non-criteria aPL, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are one of the most frequently studied aPL. More and more studies illustrate the evidence of the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies. aPS/PT IgG and IgM are associated with arterial and venous thrombosis, show an overlap with LA presence, and are frequently present in triple-positive patients, regarded as patients at highest risk for APS-related clinical symptoms. Moreover, the association of aPS/PT with thrombosis increases with higher titers, confirming that presence of aPS/PT consolidates the risk. So far, the added value of aPS/PT on top of the criteria aPL to diagnose APS is not clear with opposing findings in literature. Described in this chapter is the procedure for detecting these antibodies with a commercial ELISA, which can be used to determine the presence of IgG and IgM aPS/PT in human samples. Additionally, general guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aPS/PT assay will be provided.

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Antibodies Toward the Domain I of Beta2-Glycoprotein I (aDI).

Anti-ß2GPI antibodies (aß2GPI) are one of the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), along with lupus anticoagulant (LA) and anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL). A subset of the aß2GPI are the antibodies directed toward the domain I of the ß2GPI (aDI). The aDI are regarded as non-criteria aPL and are among the most studied non-criteria aPL. Antibodies directed against a specific epitope in the domain I (G40-R43) of ß2GPI were shown to be strongly correlated with thrombotic and obstetric events in APS. Many studies illustrated the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies, although with various results, depending on the assay used. The first studies were performed with an in-house ELISA with high specificity for aDI toward the G40-R43 epitope. More recently, a commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay for aDI IgG became obtainable for diagnostic laboratories. Although the added value of aDI on top of the criteria aPL is not clear, with opposing findings in literature, the assay might help in the diagnosis of APS, identifying the patients at risk since aDI are frequently present with high titers in triple-positive patients (positive for LA, aß2GPI, and aCL). aDI can be used as a confirmatory test and is useful for proving the specificity of the aß2GPI antibodies. In this chapter, the procedure for detecting these antibodies is outlined, using an automated chemiluminescence assay which can be used to determine the presence of IgG aDI in human samples. General guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aDI assay are also provided.

Application of the thrombin generation assay in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review of the literature.

Background: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is classified by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and thrombotic and/or adverse obstetric outcomes. The diagnosis and risk assessment of APS is challenging. This systematic review investigated if the thrombin generation (TG) assay could be helpful for APS diagnosis and risk assessment. Methods: A systemic review was performed by searching two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) until March 31, 2022, using a search strategy with two concepts: APS and TG, and related keywords. Two reviewers independently screened the articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were performed independently. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines were followed for data synthesis reporting. Results: Fourteen studies with 677 APS and 1,349 control subjects were included with variable quality according to the NOS. Twelve studies measured TG via the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) method using a fluorogenic substrate, whereas two used a chromogenic substrate-based TG assay. One study compared the CAT assay to the fully-automated ST Genesia® (Stago, France). Two studies initiated TG using platelet-rich plasma, whereas the rest of the studies used platelet-poor plasma. Resistance to activated protein C (aPC) was examined in ten studies. They reported a significant increase in aPC-resistance in APS patients compared to healthy controls, aPL-carriers, and thrombotic controls. Based on two studies, the prevalence of aPC-resistance was higher in APS patients compared to healthy controls and thrombotic controls with odds ratios of 5.9 and 6.8-12.8, respectively (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant difference in aPC-resistance was found between APS patients and autoimmune disease controls. Furthermore, 7/14 studies reported TG-parameters including peak height, endogenous thrombin potential, lag time, and time to peak, but these outcomes were highly variable between studies. Furthermore, TG methodology between studies differed greatly, impacting the comparability of the studies. Conclusion: aPC-resistance measured with TG was increased in APS patients compared to healthy and thrombotic controls, but the diagnostic and prognostic value is unclear compared to current diagnostic strategies. Studies of other TG-parameters were heterogeneous and more research is needed to identify their potential added value in APS diagnosis. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022308363.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: The added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) in the diagnostic workup of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unclear. Currently, diagnosis of thrombotic APS (TAPS) and obstetric APS (OAPS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM, or anti-ß2-glycoprotein I (aß2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in OAPS. METHODS: aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aß2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 653 patients (OAPS, TAPS, and controls). In-house aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, titers and prevalence were compared between OAPS, TAPS, and controls and type of pregnancy morbidity. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: In OAPS, aPS/PT IgG and IgM showed an OR of 4.32 (95% CI, 2.54-7.36) and 3.37 (95% CI, 1.93-5.89), respectively, but the association was not independent of LAC. Prevalence and titers of aPS/PT IgG and IgM were lower in OAPS than in patients with TAPS. aPS/PT were more prevalent and showed higher titers in patients with late pregnancy loss than in patients with early pregnancy loss with a positivity of 86.4% and 39.3%, respectively. Higher aPS/PT titers did not increase the likelihood of having OAPS. CONCLUSION: The added value of aPS/PT testing in the current diagnostic workup of OAPS seems limited compared with LAC, aCL, and aß2GPI. aPS/PT might be useful in specific subsets of patients with OAPS. However, future multicentric studies are needed to elucidate the risk of less frequent and most severe obstetrical manifestations.

Solid Phase Assays for Antiphospholipid Antibodies.

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aß2GPI) IgG or IgM are the laboratory criteria if persistently present over time. As aCL and aß2GPI are two out of the three laboratory criteria, the detection of aPL by solid phase assays is an essential step in the diagnosis of APS. Advancement has been made to resolve some of the methodological challenges of aCL and aß2GPI assays by providing guidelines how to measure aPL, as well as to gain a better understanding of their diagnostic role. However, solid phase assays for aCL and aß2GPI still show substantive inter-assay differences, resulting in disagreement concerning positive/negative results, but also differences in titer of antibodies. This hampers the semiquantitative classification into low-medium-high positivity. The non-criteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain one of ß2GPI and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) have roles in confirming the risk in APS, and can be useful, especially in patients with incomplete antibody profiles.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, or anti-ß2 glycoprotein I (aß2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies. Other antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are promising in assessment of thrombotic APS (TAPS). AIM: To evaluate the added value of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in TAPS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aß2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 757 patients (TAPS and controls). aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, and aPS/PT titers and positivity were compared between TAPS and controls, type of thrombosis, and antibody profiles. Likelihood ratios (LR), odds ratios (OR), and aPL score were determined. RESULTS: aPS/PT IgG and IgM were associated with TAPS and triple positivity. In-house calculated cut-offs were higher for IgM (43 units), compared to manufacturer's cut-off (30 units). Thresholds of 90 (IgG) and 200 (IgM) units were determined as high-titer cut-off. Higher aPS/PT titers were observed in triple positive patients and showed higher LR and OR for TAPS. aPS/PT was independently associated with TAPS when adjusted for aCL/aß2GPI, but not when adjusted for LAC. In isolated LAC positive patients, aPS/PT was positive in 27.1% TAPS patients and in 77.3% patients with autoimmune disease. Diagnostic value of aPL score did not differ with and without including aPS/PT. CONCLUSION: aPS/PT positivity, especially with high antibody titer, is associated with TAPS diagnosis. Analysis on top of current laboratory criteria is not essential in TAPS diagnosis, but aPS/PT could be useful in patients with thrombosis and a double positive aPL profile (aCL+/aß2GPI+).

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-ß2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aß2GPI) 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 aß2GPI 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 aß2GPI, 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 ß2 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.

Monitoring of heparin therapy beyond the anti-Xa activity assay: Evaluation of a thrombin generation assay.

INTRODUCTION: Global coagulation assays may be of added value to the anti-Xa assay for monitoring heparin therapy. Unlike most testing methods, the thrombin generation assay (TGA) has the ability to assess the overall function of the hemostatic system, which provides information on the anticoagulation status of patients. We compared the TGA, measured with ST Genesia® STG-DrugScreen® reagent, with the anti-Xa assay for monitoring heparin therapy in inflammatory and non-inflammatory patients. We also determined reference values for STG-DrugScreen® thrombin generation (TG) parameters. METHODS: Reference values were determined on 120 healthy donors. Furthermore, a spiking experiment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was performed, and samples of patients receiving UFH or LMWH were analyzed with ST Genesia® and the anti-Xa assay. RESULTS: High discrepancy between TG parameters and anti-Xa activity was observed for low LMWH anti-Xa levels. TG parameters were affected in 36/46 (time to peak) to 42/46 (peak height) patients during UFH therapy with sub-target anti-Xa activity levels. CONCLUSION: TGA seems insufficiently sensitive for low concentrations of LMWH. There may be an added value of the TGA for monitoring UFH in so-called heparin-resistant patients. Therefore, the TGA has the potential to be introduced as an additional tool for monitoring heparin therapy.

Comparison of coagulation monitoring using ROTEM and Sonoclot devices in cardiac surgery: a single-center prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Viscoelastic tests (VETs) are recommended during cardiac surgery to monitor coagulation status and guide transfusion. We compared the results of two VETs, the Sonoclot Analyzer and the ROTEM Sigma. Agreement between viscoelastic tests' subdiagnoses and overall diagnosis severity was assessed. Correlations with conventional coagulation tests (CCT) and the discriminatory potential of numerical VET outputs for transfusion thresholds was determined. METHODS: Single-center, prospective observational study in a tertiary academic center. In fifty adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, parallel Sonoclot, ROTEM and CCT analysis was performed before heparin, or after protamine or coagulation product administration. All patients completed the study, resulting in 139 data points. RESULTS: Agreement on the severity of coagulation disorders was acceptable (83%), but poor (27%) on the differentiation of the underlying causes. Correlations between ROTEM parameters and CCT were good (postprotamine: FIBTEM A5 (r2=0.90 vs. fibrinogen) and EXTEM-FIBTEM A5 difference (r2=0.81 vs. platelet count). Sonoclot correlated less (Clot Rate (r2=0.25 vs. fibrinogen) and Platelet Function (r2=0.43 vs. platelet count). This was reflected in the discriminatory potential of these parameters as found by linear mixed modelling. We suggest clinically useful grey zones for VET cutoff interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: ROTEM and Sonoclot accord well on the detection of severity of coagulation dysfunction, but not on the diagnosis of the underlying cause. ROTEM correlated more closely with CCT then Sonoclot. We propose a testing strategy that could lead to a cost-effective approach to the bleeding cardiac surgery patient.