A comparative analysis of different automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein Ib-binding activity assays in well typed von Willebrand disease patients
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study
PubMed
29742318
DOI
10.1111/jth.14145
PII: S1538-7836(22)02332-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Von Willebrand disease, classification, ristocetin cofactor, subtypes, von Willebrand factor,
- MeSH
- Biomarkers blood MeSH
- Equipment Design MeSH
- Hematologic Tests instrumentation methods MeSH
- Automation, Laboratory MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
- Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Platelet Glycoprotein GPIb-IX Complex metabolism MeSH
- Protein Binding MeSH
- von Willebrand Diseases blood classification diagnosis MeSH
- von Willebrand Factor metabolism MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Belgium MeSH
- Czech Republic MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Biomarkers MeSH
- Platelet Glycoprotein GPIb-IX Complex MeSH
- von Willebrand Factor MeSH
UNLABELLED: Essentials Von Willebrand ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo) is not a completely reliable assay. Three automated VWF activity assays were compared within a von Willebrand disease (VWD) cohort. Raw values for all three assays were virtually the same. An overall problem within type 2A/IIE VWD using VWF:GPIb-binding activity/VWF:Ag was observed. SUMMARY: Background von Willebrand disease (VWD) is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by quantitative (type 1 and 3) or qualitative (type 2) von Willebrand factor (VWF) defect. VWD diagnosis and classification require numerous laboratory tests. VWF: glycoprotein Ib (GPIb)-binding activity assays are used to distinguish type 1 from type 2 VWD. Objectives Three different automated VWF:GPIb-binding activity assays were compared. Patients and methods BC-VWF:RCo (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), HemosIL® VWF:RCo (Instrumentation Laboratory) and INNOVANCE® VWF:Ac (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) were performed in a well typed VWD cohort (n = 142). Results Based on the three most used VWD parameters (FVIII:C, VWF:Ag and VWF:GPIb-binding activity) and using a cut-off of <0.70 for type 2 VWD revealed sensitivity and specificity of, respectively, 92% and 72.4% for VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag, 84% and 89.7% for VWF:GPIbR/VWF:Ag, and 92% and 85.1% for VWF:GPIbM/VWF:Ag, whereas a lowered cut-off of < 0.60 resulted in reduced sensitivity with increased specificity for all assays. Conclusion VWD classification based on FVIII:C, VWF:Ag and VWF:GPIb-binding activity revealed an overall problem with normal VWF:GPIb-binding activity/VWF:Ag within type 2, especially type 2A/IIE. Although all assays were practically identical, BC-VWF:RCo had higher %CV compared with both new assays but comparable lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) ~4 IU dL-1 . No clear improved distinction between type 1 and 2 VWD with new assays was seen. BC-VWF: RCo and HemosIL® are ristocetin dependent, whereas INNOVANCE® does not rely upon ristocetin and is not influenced by VWF polymorphisms increasing VWF:GPIb-binding activity levels. INNOVANCE® seems to be the best choice as a first-line VWF:GPIb-binding activity assay, providing the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for type 2 VWD.
CSL Behring Chair in von Willebrand Disease Antwerp University Antwerp Belgium
Department of Clinical Hematology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Department of Laboratory Methods Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic
Department of Paediatric Haematology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Diagnostic Haemostasis and Thrombosis Laboratory Viapath Analytics St Thomas' Hospital London UK
Haemostasis Research Unit Antwerp University Antwerp Belgium
Haemostasis Unit Department of Haematology Antwerp University Hospital Edegem Belgium
References provided by Crossref.org