BACKGROUND: Presence of bleeding symptoms, inheritance and reduced von Willebrand factor (VWF) contribute to the diagnosis of type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD). However, quantitative analysis of the importance of VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo) levels in the diagnosis is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative contribution of VWF measurement to the diagnosis of VWD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the MCMDM-1VWD study cohort, 204 subjects (considered as affected by VWD based on the enrolling Center diagnoses and the presence of linkage with the VWF locus) were compared with 1155 normal individuals. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic positive likelihood ratios (LR) of VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo were computed. RESULTS: ABO blood group was the variable most influencing VWF levels, but adjustment of the lower reference limit for the ABO group did not improve sensitivity and specificity of VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo. The lower reference limit (2.5th percentile) was 47 IU dL(-1) for both VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo and showed similar diagnostic performance [receiver-operator curve area: 0.962 and 0.961 for VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo, respectively; P = 0.81]. The probability of VWD was markedly increased only for values below 40 IU dL(-1) (positive LR: 95.1 for VWF:Ag), whereas intermediate values (40 to 60 IU dL(-1)) of VWF only marginally indicated the probability of VWD. CONCLUSIONS: Although the conventional 2.5 lower percentile has good sensitivity and specificity, only VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo values below 40 IU dL(-1) appear to significantly indicate the likelihood of type 1 VWD. The LR profile of VWF level could be used in a diagnostic algorithm.
BACKGROUND: Presence of bleeding symptoms, inheritance and reduced von Willebrand factor (VWF) contribute to the diagnosis of type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD). However, quantitative analysis of the importance of VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo) levels in the diagnosis is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative contribution of VWF measurement to the diagnosis of VWD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the MCMDM-1VWD study cohort, 204 subjects (considered as affected by VWD based on the enrolling Center diagnoses and the presence of linkage with the VWF locus) were compared with 1155 normal individuals. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic positive likelihood ratios (LR) of VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo were computed. RESULTS:ABO blood group was the variable most influencing VWF levels, but adjustment of the lower reference limit for the ABO group did not improve sensitivity and specificity of VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo. The lower reference limit (2.5th percentile) was 47 IU dL(-1) for both VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo and showed similar diagnostic performance [receiver-operator curve area: 0.962 and 0.961 for VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo, respectively; P = 0.81]. The probability of VWD was markedly increased only for values below 40 IU dL(-1) (positive LR: 95.1 for VWF:Ag), whereas intermediate values (40 to 60 IU dL(-1)) of VWF only marginally indicated the probability of VWD. CONCLUSIONS: Although the conventional 2.5 lower percentile has good sensitivity and specificity, only VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo values below 40 IU dL(-1) appear to significantly indicate the likelihood of type 1 VWD. The LR profile of VWF level could be used in a diagnostic algorithm.
Authors: Veronica H Flood; Pamela A Christopherson; Joan Cox Gill; Kenneth D Friedman; Sandra L Haberichter; Daniel B Bellissimo; Rupa A Udani; Mahua Dasgupta; Raymond G Hoffmann; Margaret V Ragni; Amy D Shapiro; Jeanne M Lusher; Steven R Lentz; Thomas C Abshire; Cindy Leissinger; W Keith Hoots; Marilyn J Manco-Johnson; Ralph A Gruppo; Lisa N Boggio; Kate T Montgomery; Anne C Goodeve; Paula D James; David Lillicrap; Ian R Peake; Robert R Montgomery Journal: Blood Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mariachiara Borghi; Giuseppe Guglielmini; Anna Maria Mezzasoma; Emanuela Falcinelli; Loredana Bury; Marco Malvestiti; Paolo Gresele Journal: Haematologica Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Veronica H Flood; Joan Cox Gill; Patricia A Morateck; Pamela A Christopherson; Kenneth D Friedman; Sandra L Haberichter; Brian R Branchford; Raymond G Hoffmann; Thomas C Abshire; Jorge A Di Paola; W Keith Hoots; Cindy Leissinger; Jeanne M Lusher; Margaret V Ragni; Amy D Shapiro; Robert R Montgomery Journal: Blood Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Jeroen Eikenboom; Augusto B Federici; Richard J Dirven; Giancarlo Castaman; Francesco Rodeghiero; Ulrich Budde; Reinhard Schneppenheim; Javier Batlle; Maria Teresa Canciani; Jenny Goudemand; Ian Peake; Anne Goodeve Journal: Blood Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Paula D James; Nathan T Connell; Barbara Ameer; Jorge Di Paola; Jeroen Eikenboom; Nicolas Giraud; Sandra Haberichter; Vicki Jacobs-Pratt; Barbara Konkle; Claire McLintock; Simon McRae; Robert R Montgomery; James S O'Donnell; Nikole Scappe; Robert Sidonio; Veronica H Flood; Nedaa Husainat; Mohamad A Kalot; Reem A Mustafa Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-01-12
Authors: Mohamad A Kalot; Nedaa Husainat; Abdallah El Alayli; Omar Abughanimeh; Osama Diab; Sammy Tayiem; Bader Madoukh; Ahmad B Dimassi; Aref Qureini; Barbara Ameer; Jeroen C J Eikenboom; Nicolas Giraud; Claire McLintock; Simon McRae; Robert R Montgomery; James S O'Donnell; Nikole Scappe; Robert F Sidonio; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Veronica H Flood; Nathan T Connell; Paula D James; Reem A Mustafa Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Janine E van Loon; Yvonne V Sanders; Eva M de Wee; Marieke J H A Kruip; Moniek P M de Maat; Frank W G Leebeek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240