A comparative analysis of different automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein Ib-binding activity assays in well typed von Willebrand disease patients

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F65269705%3A_____%2F18%3A00069284" target="_blank" >RIV/65269705:_____/18:00069284 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216224:14110/18:00104167

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jth.14145" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jth.14145</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jth.14145" target="_blank" >10.1111/jth.14145</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

A comparative analysis of different automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein Ib-binding activity assays in well typed von Willebrand disease patients

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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((R)) VWF:RCo (Instrumentation Laboratory) and INNOVANCE((R)) 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 &lt;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 &lt; 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) similar to 4 IU dL(-1). No clear improved distinction between type 1 and 2 VWD with new assays was seen. BC-VWF:RCo and HemosIL((R)) are ristocetin dependent, whereas INNOVANCE((R)) does not rely upon ristocetin and is not influenced by VWF polymorphisms increasing VWF:GPIb-binding activity levels. INNOVANCE((R)) 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

A comparative analysis of different automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein Ib-binding activity assays in well typed von Willebrand disease patients

Popis výsledku anglicky

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((R)) VWF:RCo (Instrumentation Laboratory) and INNOVANCE((R)) 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 &lt;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 &lt; 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) similar to 4 IU dL(-1). No clear improved distinction between type 1 and 2 VWD with new assays was seen. BC-VWF:RCo and HemosIL((R)) are ristocetin dependent, whereas INNOVANCE((R)) does not rely upon ristocetin and is not influenced by VWF polymorphisms increasing VWF:GPIb-binding activity levels. INNOVANCE((R)) 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30205 - Hematology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis

ISSN

1538-7933

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

16

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

7

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

1268-1277

Kód UT WoS článku

000437289500005

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85049500253