Casini, Alessandro

Abstract This guidance was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardisation in Haematology (ICSH) by an international working group of clinicians and scientists. The document focuses on tests and assays used for the assessment of fibrinogen function, particularly in the scenario of bleeding disorders. Thrombin clotting time (TT) is used as a screening test in some laboratories and also has some utility when direct anticoagulants are in use. The Clauss fibrinogen assay remains the method of choice for the assessment of fibrinogen function, but there are some situations where the results may be misleading. Prothrombin time derived fibrinogen assays are frequently used, but should be interpreted with caution; the results are not interchangeable between different methods and fibrinogen can be overestimated in certain clinical scenarios. Viscoelastic point of care methods may be helpful in emergency situations, while Reptilase time (and similar tests) are useful combined with TT in distinguishing heparin contamination of samples (i.e., if an incorrect blood draw is suspected) and the presence of direct thrombin inhibitors. Fibrinogen antigen assays should be used in the investigation of functional fibrinogen abnormalities; fibrinogen antigen and genetic testing are recommended in the confirmation of congenital fibrinogen disorders. The following recommendations for fibrinogen function assessment are based on published literature and expert opinion and should supplement local regulations and standards.

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.