SummaryIn order to investigate the possibility that qualitative type 2 defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF) occurred in patients previously diagnosed with quantitative type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD), the phenotypes and genotypes were reanalysed in 30 patients who exhibited discrepant VWF activity/VWF:Ag ratios of less than 0.7. The capacity of VWF to bind to glycoprotein Ib (GpIb) was reassessed using the ristocetin co-factor activity (VWF:RiCo) assay compared to an in-house and a commercial ELISA assay (based on a mAb directed against the GpIb binding site on VWF). This was supplemented by multimeric analysis and the amplification and sequencing of a 936 bp fragment of exon 28 of the VWF gene with the aim of identifying mutations in the A1 domain. On reappraisal, using the VWF:RiCo assay all patients demonstrated a disproportionately reduced VWF:RiCo/VWF:Ag ratio, indicative of a qualitative defect, while abnormal ratios were detected in only seven kindreds using the in-house ELISA assay and in only one kindred with the commercial ELISA assay. Eight single amino acid substitutions were found in nine kindreds, four of which were novel candidate VWF mutations and four previously described in association with type 2 VWD. In agreement with the phenotype, the novel VWF mutations were located in the VWF-A1 crystal structure at positions that corresponded to potential type 2M defects. This study underlines the difficulties of correct diagnosis of the subtype of VWD and emphasises the importance of using sensitive phenotypic assays, the relevance of the VWF:RiCo/ VWF:Ag ratio, multimeric analysis and molecular modelling analysis.

No abstract

Summary. This study compares the utility of two functional assays for von Willebrand factor (VWF), the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo) and the collagen‐binding assay (VWF:CBA). We analysed a group of 32 patients with type 2 von Willebrand disease (VWD) (25 patients with type 2M, six with type 2A and one with type 2B) and 22 normal control subjects. VWF:RCo/VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) ratios and VWF:CBA/VWF:Ag ratios were compared between the patient and control groups. In the six patients with type 2A VWD, both VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag ratios and VWF:CBA/VWF:Ag ratios were discordant (≤ 0·7). In the 25 type 2M VWD patients, the VWF:CBA/VWF:Ag ratios were concordant (> 0·7), but the VWF:RCo/VWF:CBA ratios were discordant (≤ 0·7) (P = 0·001) compared with control subjects. Thus, VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag ratios were discordant in both type 2M and 2A VWD patient groups indicating a functional abnormality. However, VWF:CBA/VWF:Ag ratios were discordant in the type 2A VWD group but not in the type 2M VWD group. Our study showed that VWF:CBA is sensitive to functional variants associated with the loss of high‐molecular‐weight multimers, i.e. type 2A and 2B in VWD, but the assay was unable to discriminate defective platelet‐binding VWD variants with normal multimeric patterns such as type 2M VWD. It was concluded that the VWF:CBA assay should be used in association with rather than as a replacement for the VWF:RCo assay.

Summary. This clinical retrospective study investigated the dif®culties in diagnosing type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD). A total of 246 patients previously diagnosed with type 1 VWD were reclassi®ed into`possible' type 1 VWD (patients with low levels of VWF adjusted for the blood group and either a signi®cant bleeding history or family history) and`de®nite' type 1 VWD, requiring low levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF), a bleeding history and inheritance. On reclassi®cation, only 144/246 (59%) patients had low VWF levels adjusted for blood group, 88/246 (36%) patients met all the criteria for`de®nite' type 1 VWD and 51/246 (21%) patients were`possible' type 1 VWD. A signi®cant proportion of patients, 102/246 (42%), remained an indeterminate group with blood type O, VWF levels between 35 and 50 U/dl and personal and/or family bleeding history. This subgroup might require reclassi®cation as`not VWD'.However, a similar bleeding tendency was found in two matched groups of patients of blood groups O and non-O and VWF levels between 35 and 50 U/dl. These results suggest that the use of ABO adjusted ranges for VWF levels might not be essential for diagnosis, because bleeding symptoms may depend on the VWF level regardless of the ABO type. Of the diagnostic criteria, the bleeding history was of prime importance in the clinical decision to diagnose and treat type 1 VWD. These observations could help in the reconsideration of how the criteria for diagnosing type 1 VWD could be adjusted in order to maximize their clinical relevance.