Olson, John D.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

Context.— Assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug levels by reliable laboratory assays is necessary in a number of clinical scenarios. Objective.— To evaluate the performance of DOAC-specific assays for various concentrations of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, assess the interlaboratory variability in measurement of these DOACs, and investigate the responsiveness of the routine clotting assays to various concentrations of these oral anticoagulants. Design.— College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data from 2013 to 2016 were summarized and analyzed. Results.— For dabigatran, the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) of ecarin chromogenic assay was broad (ranging from 7.5% to 29.1%, 6.3% to 15.5%, and 6.8% to 9.0% for 100-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The CV for diluted thrombin time for dabigatran was better overall (ranging from 11.6% to 17.2%, 9.3% to 12.3, and 7.1% to 11.2% for 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). The rivaroxaban-calibrated anti-Xa assay CVs also showed variability (ranging from 11.5% to 22.2%, 7.2% to 10.9%, and 6.4% to 8.1% for 50-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) showed variable dose- and reagent-dependent responsiveness to DOACs: PT was more responsive to rivaroxaban and aPTT to dabigatran. The undiluted thrombin time showed maximum prolongation across all 3 dabigatran concentrations, making it too sensitive for drug-level monitoring, but supporting its use as a qualitative screening assay. Conclusions.— DOAC-specific assays performed reasonably well. While PT and aPTT cannot be used safely to determine DOAC degree of anticoagulation, a normal thrombin time excludes the presence of dabigatran.

Context.— The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed proficiency testing for platelet function assays by using blood collected by the participant added to challenge tubes containing either saline (normal) or tirofiban (abnormal). Objective.— To analyze platelet function proficiency testing for Platelet Function Analyzer PFA-100, platelet aggregation, PlateletWorks, and PlateletMapping. Design.— Proficiency testing data from 2012–2016 were analyzed. Results.— For PFA-100, a total of 1200 laboratories participated; the coefficient variation (CV) of cartridge closure times was 22% (saline); 44,952 of 45,616 survey responses (99%) provided an interpretation, and 42,934 of 44,952 (96%) were correct. For optical platelet aggregation, 190 laboratories participated; the CV was 17% (saline), 7444 of 7813 survey responses (95%) provided an interpretation, and 7015 of 7444 (94%) were correct. For PlateletWorks, 60 laboratories participated; the CV was 3% to 11% (saline); 2412 of 2454 survey responses (98%) provided an interpretation, and 1207 of 1276 (95%) were correct for adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and 936 of 1136 (82%) for collagen. For PlateletMapping, 200 laboratories participated. For ADP, 1128 of 2697 survey responses (42%) provided an interpretation, but only 927 of 1128 (82%) were correct. For arachidonic acid, 1139 of 2604 survey responses (44%) provided an interpretation and 964 of 1139 (85%) were correct. Conclusions.— CAP is the first to provide proficiency testing for platelet aggregation, PlateletWorks, and PlateletMapping. Platelet aggregation, PFA-100, and PlateletWorks using ADP as an agonist performed well with more than 90% of laboratories providing an interpretation and a similar number providing correct results. PlateletWorks using collagen and PlateletMapping showed worse interpretive accuracy than the other methods.