Introduction: One of the main advantages of using anti-Xa instead of activated partial thromboplastin time in monitoring of unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy relies on its hypothesized standardization, with a unique therapeutic range defined to be 0.30 to 0.70 IU/mL. The aim of the present study was to compare the inter-reagent agreement of anti-Xa activity. Methods: Citrate tubes were obtained from 104 inpatients on UFH. Plasma samples were stored frozen in aliquots at −70°C before being shipped to three accredited coagulation laboratories to be evaluated for anti-Xa activity using their routine assay(s). Pooled normal plasmas spiked with dilutions of the 6th International Standard of UFH to achieve anti-Xa activities up to 1.0 IU/mL were evaluated using the same techniques. Results: In the plasmas from patients on UFH, the median anti-Xa activity ranged from 0.37 IU/mL with one reagent to 0.57 IU/mL with another; results were in between (0.45 IU/mL) using two other reagents. Comparisons of results obtained using the different reagents demonstrated unacceptable bias up to 0.24 IU/mL between some reagents (41% difference). The concordance as whether anti-Xa activities measured using different reagents were within or outside the therapeutic range was between 0.411 and 0.939 (kappa). Similar discrepancy was demonstrated for anti-Xa activities when evaluating normal plasma spiked with the International Standard. A discrepancy of the same order of magnitude was demonstrated in the 2017 External Quality Assessment Program provided by the External Quality Control in Assays and Tests exercises. Conclusions: The reported discrepancy between test results obtained using different anti-Xa assays clearly suggests a lack of standardization of that assay with potentially significant impact on the patients' anticoagulation.
Summary Introduction Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is a routine clotting assay that is widely used to globally screen for coagulation abnormalities. It is commonly admitted that a prolonged test result, may trigger the need for specific assays to be performed, particularly factor measurement. However, the sensitivity of aPTT reagents to deficiencies of clotting factors varies. Methods We evaluated, according to the recommendation of the CLSI H47‐A2 guideline, the responsiveness to single factor levels of five aPTT reagents by using factor‐deficient plasmas spiked with a calibration plasma to produce individual factor activities ranging from <1 to ~100 Unit (U)/dL. Test results were expressed as the sample‐to‐control ratio, the latter was defined as the clotting time obtained in the calibration plasma containing ~100 U/dL factor activity. The factor activity producing a prolongation of aPTT above the upper limit of its specific normal range (in ratio) was assigned as the factor responsiveness in U/dL to that reagent. Results Responsiveness ranged from 34 to 47 U/dL to FVIII:C, from 18 to 57 U/dL to FIX, from 38 to 52 U/dL to FXI, from 29 to 50 U/dL to FXII, from 40 and 59 U/dL to FV, from 7.5 to 49 U/dL to FX, and from 9.1 to 10.5 U/dL to FII. Conclusions These results suggest that the sensitivity of the tested aPTT reagents to single factor deficiency is highly variable. Moreover, for one given aPTT reagent, its sensitivity was very different depending on the deficient factor. This must be considered when analyzing clinical materials.
Introduction: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy is monitored by using the anti-activated factor X (anti-Xa) activity, or the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), which remains the most widely used assay. One of the main advantages of anti-Xa relies on its hypothesized standardization, with a unique therapeutic range (0.30-0.70 IU/ml) for all reagents, whereas APTT is influenced by numerous preanalytical and analytical parameters not related to the anticoagulant activity of UFH. Methods:The aim of this study was to compare the anti-Xa-correlated APTT therapeutic ranges calculated using different combinations of APTT (n = 4) and anti-Xa reagents (n = 4) in frozen citrated plasmas from 87 inpatients on UFH. Results:The median APTT ratio ranged from 2.19 for the less sensitive to 3.23 for the most sensitive reagent, whereas the median anti-Xa activity was between 0.37 IU/ml and 0.57 IU/ml. The APTT therapeutic ranges calculated to correlate with anti-Xa activities between 0.30 and 0.70 IU/ml were found to be highly different from one combination of APTT reagent and analyzer to another. The same applied to the therapeutic range of a single APTT reagent calculated using different anti-Xa assays performed on the same analyzer, leading to a lack of agreement as to whether a sample was classified as subtherapeutic, therapeutic or supratherapeutic in 8.0% to 23.0% of the patients, with kappa coefficients between 0.908 and 0.753. Conclusions:These results suggest that the APTT therapeutic range calculated to correlate with anti-Xa activities between 0.30 and 0.70 IU/ml is influenced not only by the APTT reagent, but also by the anti-Xa reagent used for calculation.
Replacement therapy with plasma‐derived or recombinant FVIII and FIX (pdFVIII/pdFIX or rFVIII/rFIX) concentrates is the standard of treatment in patients with haemophilia A and B, respectively. Measurement of factor VIII (FVIII:C) or factor IX (FIX:C) levels can be done by one‐stage clotting assay (OSA) or chromogenic substrate assay (CSA). The French study group on the Biology of Hemorrhagic Diseases (a collaborative group of the GFHT and MHEMO network) presents a literature review and proposals for the monitoring of FVIII:C and FIX:C levels in treated haemophilia A and B patients, respectively. The use of CSA is recommended for the monitoring of patients treated with pdFVIII or rFVIII including extended half‐life (EHL) rFVIII. Except for rFVIII‐Fc, great caution is required when measuring FVIII:C levels by OSA in patients substituted by EHL‐rFVIII. The OSA is recommended for the monitoring of patients treated with pdFIX or rFIX. Large discordances in the FIX:C levels measured for extended half‐life rFIX (EHL‐rFIX), depending on the method and reagents used, must lead to great attention when OSA is used for measuring FIX:C levels in patients substituted by EHL‐rFIX. Data of most of recent studies, obtained with spiked plasmas, deserve to be confirmed in plasma samples of treated patients.
Background: As aging was found to be associated with increased D-dimer levels, the question arose whether D-dimer measurement was useful in the diagnostic strategy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in elderly patients. Aim of the study:To compare retrospectively the performance of six diagnostic strategies based on the three-level Wells scores and various cut-off levels for D-dimer, evaluated using the HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500 assay, in a derivation cohort of 644 outpatients with non-high pretest probability (PTP) of VTE. The clinical usefulness of the best-performing strategy was then confirmed in a multicenter validation study involving 1255 consecutive outpatients with non-high PTP. Results:The diagnostic strategy based on the age-adjusted cut-off level calculated by multiplying the patient's age by 10 above 50 years was found to perform the best in the derivation study with a better sensitivity-to-specificity ratio than the conventional strategy based on the fixed cut-off level (500 ng/ml), a higher specificity and a negative predictive value (NPV) above 99%. Such an increase in test specificity was confirmed in the validation cohort, with the NPV remaining above 99%. Taking into account the local reimbursement rates of diagnostic tests, using this strategy led to a 6.9% reduction of diagnostic costs for pulmonary embolism and a 5.1% reduction for deep vein thrombosis, as imaging tests would be avoided in a higher percentage of patients. Conclusion:The diagnostic strategy of VTE based on the age-adjusted cut-off level for D-dimer in patients over 50 years was found to be safe, with NPV above 99%, and cost-effective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.