Comparing the quality of testing for von Willebrand disease in different geographic localities

Favaloro, Emmanuel J.

doi:10.1111/hae.14499

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, VWF:GPIbR users were higher in number, and VWF: Ab much lower in number in the published study. 8 Lastly, the ratio calculations by Favaloro included results that were below the assay limit of detection (i.e., a value reported as <10 U/dL was taken as 9 U/dL), 25 whereas these values were excluded from ratio calculations in our analysis.…”

Section: Influence Of Clinical Guidelines On Practice Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Testing for von Willebrand Disease: Trends and Insights from North American Laboratories over the Last Decade

Ziemba

Abdulrehman

Hollestelle³

et al. 2022

Semin Thromb Hemost

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) depends on the quality, precision, and variability of the laboratory assays. The North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) is a provider of external quality assessment (EQA) for approximately 60 specialized coagulation laboratories in North America. In this report, NASCOLA EQA data from 2010 to 2021 are reviewed for trends in methodology and precision among various assays. In particular, recent ASH ISTH NHF WFH (American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Hemophilia Federation) guidelines for diagnosis of VWD are reviewed in light of EQA data. In contrast to other geographic regions, laboratories in North America predominantly use three-assay screening panels (antigen, platelet-binding activity, and factor VIII [FVIII] activity) rather than four-assay panels (antigen, platelet-binding activity, FVIII activity, and collagen-binding activity). They also use latex immunoassays rather than chemiluminescence immunoassays, and the classic ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo) assay and monoclonal antibody (VWF:Ab) assay to assess VWF platelet-binding activity over newer recommended assays (VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR). Factors that may be influencing these North American practice patterns include lack of Food and Drug Administration approval of the VWF:GPIbM, VWF:GPIbR, collagen binding assays, and chemiluminescence methodologies, and the influence of the 2008 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines on laboratory practice. Lastly, systems-based solutions are urgently needed to improve the overall accuracy of laboratory testing for VWD by minimizing preanalytical variables and adopting assay standardization.

show abstract

Section: Influence Of Clinical Guidelines On Practice Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Testing for von Willebrand Disease: Trends and Insights from North American Laboratories over the Last Decade

Ziemba

Abdulrehman

Hollestelle³

et al. 2022

Semin Thromb Hemost

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The VWF:CB remains a personal favorite of mine, and I still continue to publish on both the VWF:CB and VWD, with several related papers published in 2022. 2 3 4 5 6 Nevertheless, the VWF:CB does deserve another historical evaluation in STH, but this can await another issue in this series. I mention this in part because VWD was also a favorite of Eberhard's.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 88%

Toward 50 Years of Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis

Favaloro

2022

Semin Thromb Hemost

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite