Thrombosis research · 2018
Differential sensitivity of von Willebrand factor activity assays to reduced VWF molecular weight forms: A large international cross-laboratory study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Favaloro Emmanuel J, Bonar Roslyn, Hollestelle Martine J, Jennings Ian, Mohammed Soma, Meijer Piet, Woods Timothy, Meiring Muriel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common inherited bleeding disorder, is due to deficiencies/defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF). Effective diagnosis requires testing for FVIII, VWF antigen and one or more VWF 'activity' assays. Classically, 'activity' is assessed using ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo), but collagen binding (VWF:CB) and/or other assays are used by many laboratories. This extensive international cross-laboratory study has specifically evaluated contemporary VWF activity assays for comparative sensitivity to reduction in high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, and their ability to differentiate type 1 vs 2A VWD-like samples.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of four samples representing step wise reduction in HMW VWF were tested by over 400 laboratories worldwide using various assays. A second set of two samples representing type 1 or type 2A VWD-like plasma was tested by a subset of 251 laboratories.
RESULTS: Combined data identified some differences between VWF activity assays, with sensitivity for reduction of HMW being highest for VWF:CB and VWF:GPIbM, intermediate for VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbR, and lowest for VWF:Ab. 'Within' method analysis identified the Stago method as the most sensitive VWF:CB assay. A large variation in inter-laboratory CV (e.g., 7-24% for the normal sample) was also demonstrated for various methods. Although performance of various methods differed significantly, most laboratories correctly differentiated between type 1 and 2 samples, irrespective of VWF activity assay employed.
CONCLUSIONS: These results hold significant clinical implications for diagnosis and therapy monitoring of VWD, as well as potential future diagnosis and therapy monitoring of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of four samples representing step wise reduction in HMW VWF were tested by over 400 laboratories worldwide using various assays. A second set of two samples representing type 1 or type 2A VWD-like plasma was tested by a subset of 251 laboratories.
RESULTS: Combined data identified some differences between VWF activity assays, with sensitivity for reduction of HMW being highest for VWF:CB and VWF:GPIbM, intermediate for VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbR, and lowest for VWF:Ab. 'Within' method analysis identified the Stago method as the most sensitive VWF:CB assay. A large variation in inter-laboratory CV (e.g., 7-24% for the normal sample) was also demonstrated for various methods. Although performance of various methods differed significantly, most laboratories correctly differentiated between type 1 and 2 samples, irrespective of VWF activity assay employed.
CONCLUSIONS: These results hold significant clinical implications for diagnosis and therapy monitoring of VWD, as well as potential future diagnosis and therapy monitoring of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP).