No abstract

Introduction Diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) is challenging due to heterogeneity of VWD and test limitations. Many von Willebrand factor (VWF) assays are utilized, including antigen (Ag), activity and multimer analysis. Activity assays include ristocetin cofactor using platelets (VWF:RCo) or other particles incorporating recombinant glycoprotein I (‘VWF:GPIbR’), or other GPI binding assays using gain‐of‐function mutations (‘VWF:GPIbM’), or collagen binding (VWF:CB). Aim To comparatively evaluate modern contemporary VWF activity assays vs VWF multimer analysis using modern contemporary methods. Materials and methods Several VWF activity assays (VWF:RCo, VWF:GPIbR, VWF:GPIbM, VWF:CB) assessed (typically as a ratio against VWF:Ag) against a new semi‐automated procedure for different types of VWD (1, 3, 2A, 2B, 2M), plus control material (n = 580). The evaluation also focussed on relative loss of high and very high molecular weight multimers (HMWM and VHMWM) by densitometric scanning. Results All evaluated VWF activity/Ag ratios showed high correlation to the presence/absence of HMWM and VHMWM, although VWF:CB/Ag and VWF:GPIbR/Ag ratios using an automated chemiluminescence method yielded highest correlation coefficients (r = .909 and .874, respectively, for HMWM). Use of the investigative procedure (VHMWM) identified fewer false positives for ‘loss’ in type 1 VWD. Conclusions This comparative investigation identified that new automated chemiluminescence VWF activity assays best identified relative loss or presence of HMWM and VHMWM according to activity to Ag ratios and an alternative investigative method for identifying VHMWM in multimer testing for a new commercial multimer method may lead to fewer false identifications of HMW loss in type 1 VWD.

Introduction: Accurate diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) enables effective patient management. von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimer analysis provides useful information regarding VWF multimer structure, thereby aiding VWD subtyping and management; however, historically technically challenging assays have had limited utility. This study evaluates the Sebia Hydrasys Hydragel-11 semi-automated VWF multimer assay and further validates the Hydragel-5 gel system, as primarily pertaining to VWD diagnostics and monitoring of therapy. Methods: Provisionally diagnosed (via a reference assay test panel) archived patientsamples and prospective test patient samples, including those undergoing desmopressin trial or therapy monitoring, along with commercial and in-house control material and various external quality assessment (EQA) samples, were analysed. VWF multimers were evaluated for presence, loss or partial loss of high molecular weight (HMWM) and intermediate molecular weight (IMWM) multimers by both visual inspection and densitometric scanning, and comparison with reference assay results. Results: All anticipated multimer patterns were reproduced, with patients generally showing multimer profiles matching expected patterns according to VWD type based on reference test panel 'diagnosis'. Occasional discrepancies were resolved by retesting. The increase in plasma VWF following desmopressin therapy was also clearly demonstrated. Multimer profiles of EQA samples complemented reference test panel results and matched EQA targets. There were some 'technical' limitations noted. Conclusion: This easy to use, standardised, semi-automated multimer analysis system can demonstrate the multimer profile of VWD patients, thus representing an additional laboratory tool for improved diagnosis, thereby facilitating appropriate patient management. K E Y W O R D S desmopressin, Hydragel, Multimers, von Willebrand disease, von Willebrand factor | 763 OLIVER Et aL.

Introduction von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder and caused by an absence, deficiency or defect in von Willebrand factor (VWF). VWD is currently classified into six different types: 1, 2A, 2B, 2N, 2M, 3. Notably, 2M VWD is more often misdiagnosed as 2A or type 1 VWD than properly identified as 2M VWD. Aim To describe an algorithmic approach to better ensure appropriate identification of 2M VWD, and reduce its misdiagnosis, as supported by sequential laboratory testing. Methods Comparative assessment of types 1, 2A, 2B and 2M VWD using various laboratory tests, including VWF antigen and several VWF activity assays, plus DDAVP challenge data, ristocetin‐induced platelet agglutination (RIPA) data, multimer analysis and genetic testing. Results Types 1, 2A, 2B and 2M VWD give characteristic test patterns that can provisionally classify patients into particular VWD types. Notably, type 1 VWD shows low levels of VWF, but VWF functional concordance (VWF activity/Ag ratios >0.6), with both baseline assessment and post‐DDAVP. Types 2A, 2B and 2M VWD show VWF functional discordance (low VWF activity/Ag ratio(s)) dependent on the defect, but type 2M separates from 2A/2B VWD based on specific test patterns, especially with collagen binding vs glycoprotein Ib binding assays. RIPA identifies 2B VWD. Multimers separate 2M from 2A/2B. Conclusion We provide strategies to improve correct diagnosis of VWD, especially focussed on 2M VWD, and which can be used by most diagnostic haemostasis laboratories, reserving genetic analysis (if required) for confirmation.

Objectives To verify a single platform of hemostasis instrumentation, the ACL TOP 50 Family, comprising 350, 550, and 750 instruments, across a large network of 60 laboratories. Methods Comparative evaluations of instrument classes (350 vs 550 and 750) were performed using a large battery of test samples for routine coagulation tests, comprising prothrombin time/international normalized ratio, activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), thrombin time, fibrinogen and D-dimer, and using HemosIL reagents. Comparisons were also made against existing equipment (Diagnostica Stago Satellite, Compact, and STA-R Evolution) and existing reagents to satisfy national accreditation standards. Verification of manufacturer normal reference ranges (NRRs) and generation of an APTT heparin therapeutic range were undertaken. Results The three instrument types were verified as a single instrument class, which will permit standardization of methods and NRRs across all instruments (n = 75) to be deployed in 60 laboratories. In particular, ACL TOP 350 test result data were similar to ACL TOP 550 and 750 and showed no to limited bias. All manufacturer NRRs were verified with occasional minor variance. Conclusions This ACL TOP 50 Family (350, 550, and 750) verification will enable harmonization of routine coagulation across all laboratories in the largest public pathology network in Australia.

Objectives Thrombophilia testing is commonly performed within hemostasis laboratories, and the ACL TOP 50 family of instruments represent a new ‘single platform’ of hemostasis instrumentation. The study objective was to evaluate these instruments and manufacturer reagents for utility of congenital thrombophilia assays. Methods Comparative evaluations of various congenital thrombophilia assays (protein C [PC], protein S [PS], antithrombin [AT], activated protein C resistance [APCR]) using newly installed ACL TOPs 550 and 750 as well as comparative assessments with existing, predominantly STAGO, instrumentation and reagents. Verification of manufacturer assay normal reference ranges (NRRs). Results HemosIL PC and free PS assays showed good comparability with existing Stago methods (R>0.9) and could be considered as verified as fit for purpose. HemosIL AT showed high relative bias with samples from patients on direct anti-Xa agents, compromising utility. Manufacturer NRRs for PC, PS and AT were verified with minor variance. Given the interference with direct anti-Xa agents, an alternate assay (Hyphen) was evaluated for AT, and the NRR also verified. The HemosIL Factor V Leiden (APC Resistance V) evidenced relatively poor performance compared to existing assays, and could not be adopted for use in our network. Conclusions This evaluation of HemosIL reagents on ACL TOP 50 Family instruments identified overall acceptable performance of only two (PC, free PS) of four thrombophilia assays, requiring use of third-party reagents on ACL instruments for the other two assays (AT, APCR).

Introduction Lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing is commonly performed within hemostasis laboratories, and the ACL TOP 50 family of instruments represent a new “single platform” of hemostasis instrumentation. Our aim was to evaluate these instruments and manufacturer reagents or alternatives for utility in LA testing. Methods Comparative evaluations of LA testing using newly installed ACL TOPs 550 and 750 as well as comparative assessments with existing “reference,” predominantly Stago, instrumentation, and reagents. Evaluations comprised both dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)‐based assays. Establishment of normal reference ranges (NRR). Results The HemosIL dRVVT‐based assays showed good comparability with the existing Stago reference method (R > 0.9) and could be considered as verified as fit for purpose. A variety of APTT assays was additionally evaluated for LA utility, and we identified from the assessment good utility of a non‐Werfen solution in Hyphen BioMed Cephen reagents. NRR were established based on ≥120 normal individual plasma samples. Conclusion This evaluation of LA reagents on ACL TOP 50 Family instruments identified overall acceptable performance of both dRVVT (Werfen solution) and APTT (non‐Werfen solution) to enable harmonization of LA testing in our large network.

No abstract