No abstract

No abstract

Abstractvon Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common bleeding disorder that arises from deficiency and/or defects of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Appropriate diagnosis of VWD, including differential identification of qualitative (types 2A, 2B, 2M, 2N VWD) versus quantitative (types 1 and 3 VWD) defects remains problematic but has important management implications, given differential therapy. Complete assessment for VWD in a patient with a bleeding history requires comprehensive test panels, including VWF activity and antigen. We describe the Australasian experience, using data from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) related to VWF testing in their VWD test module. The RCPAQAP has been providing samples for VWF testing since 1998, representing 25 years of proficiency testing related to VWD diagnosis. A total of 109 samples have been dispatched to participants over these years, with current assessment involving dispatches of two samples (=4 samples) per year. Samples have represented all types of VWD, as well as normal or other samples, including acquired von Willebrand syndrome and plasma VWF concentrates as used in VWD therapy. Different VWF assays and activity/antigen ratios show different utility in VWD and type identification. In the past 9 years of data capture, a total of 166 errors were identified from a total of 1,839 interpretations, representing a base error rate of 9.0%. Identification errors were highest for type 2 VWD samples (15.3%), intermediate for type 1 VWD samples (7.5%), and lowest for normal samples (2.4%). Errors can be linked to assay limitations, including assay variability and low-level VWF detection limits, as well as laboratory issues (including test result misinterpretation, which accounts for approximately 40% of all errors for type 2 VWD). For test-associated errors, VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbM were associated with the highest variability and error rate, which was up to 10x higher than that using VWF:CB. As a test group, chemiluminescence-based procedures were associated with lowest inter-laboratory variability, best low-level VWF detection (down to <1 U/dL), and least errors overall. These findings inform on reasons behind high rates of errors associated with VWD diagnosis, with some assays and methodologies performing substantially better than others.

Introduction Investigation of factors (F) VIII and IX is common, with testing important for diagnosis or exclusion of haemophilia A or B, associated acquired conditions and factor inhibitors. Rivaroxaban, a common direct anti‐Xa agent, causes significant interference in clotting assays, including substantial false reduction of factor levels. Aim To assess whether rivaroxaban‐induced interference of FVIII and FIX testing could be neutralized. Materials and methods An international, cross‐laboratory exercise for FVIII (n = 84) and FIX (n = 74), using four samples: (A) pool of normal plasma; (B) pool spiked with rivaroxaban (200 ng/mL); (C) rivaroxaban sample subsequently treated with ‘DOAC Stop’ and; (D) rivaroxaban sample treated with andexanet alfa (200 μg/mL). Testing performed blind to sample type. Results All laboratories reported normal FIX and 94% reported normal FVIII in the pool sample. Instead, 55% and 95%, respectively, reported abnormal FIX and FVIII levels for the rivaroxaban sample. DOAC Stop treatment evidenced a correction in most laboratories (100% reported normal FIX and 86% normal FVIII). Andexanet alfa provided intermediate results, with many laboratories still reporting abnormal results (59% for FVIII, 18% for FIX). We also identified reagent‐specific issues. Conclusions As expected, rivaroxaban caused false low values of FVIII and FIX. This might lead to increased testing to identify the cause of low factor levels and potentially lead to false identification of (mild) haemophilia A or B if unrecognized by clinicians/laboratories. DOAC Stop effectively neutralized the rivaroxaban effect, but andexanet alfa less so, with reagent‐related effects evident, and thus, false low values sometimes persisted.

AbstractBackgroundInvestigation of hemostasis is problematic when patients are on anticoagulant therapy. Rivaroxaban especially causes substantial interference, extending many clot-based tests, thereby leading to false positive or negative events. In particular, rivaroxaban affects some assays for activated protein C resistance (APCR).MethodsWe assessed, in an international setting, cross laboratory (n = 31) testing using four samples to evaluate rivaroxaban induced interference in APCR testing, and whether this interference could be neutralised. The samples comprised: (A) pool of normal plasma (APCR-negative control); (B) this normal pool spiked with rivaroxaban (200 ng/mL) to create rivaroxaban-induced interference (potential ‘false’ positive APCR event sample); (C) the rivaroxaban sample subsequently treated with a commercial direct oral anticoagulant ‘DOAC-neutraliser’ (DOAC Stop), or (D) treated with andexanet alfa (200 μg/mL). Testing was performed blind to sample type.ResultsThe rivaroxaban-spiked sample generated false positive APCR results for some, but unexpectedly not most APCR-tests. The sample treated with DOAC Stop evidenced a correction in the rivaroxaban-affected APCR assays, and did not otherwise adversely affect the rivaroxaban ‘unaffected’ APCR assays. The andexanet alfa-treated sample did not evidence correction of the false positive APCR, and instead unexpectedly exacerbated false positive APCR status with many tests.ConclusionsDOAC Stop was able to neutralise any APCR interference induced by rivaroxaban. In contrast, andexanet alfa did not negate such interference, and instead unexpectedly created more false-positive APCR events.