OBJECTIVE: Prothrombin (PT) is a target for antibodies with lupus anticoagulant (LA) activity, suggesting the possible application of anti-prothrombin antibody (aPT) assays in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Different methods - both homemade and commercial - for the detection of aPT are available, but they seem to produce conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different assays on a set of well-characterized serum samples. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sera were gathered from 4 FIRMA institutions, and distributed to 15 participating centres. Forty-five samples were from patients positive for LA and/or anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) with or without APS, and 15 were from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients negative for antiphospholipid antibodies. The samples were evaluated for IgG and IgM antibodies using a homemade direct aPT assay (method 1), a homemade phosphatidylserine-dependent aPT assay (aPS/PT, method 2), and two different commercial kits (methods 3 and 4). In addition, a commercial kit for the detection of IgG-A-M aPT (method 5) was used. RESULTS: Inter-laboratory results for the 5 methods were not always comparable when different methods were used. Good inter-assay concordance was found for IgG antibodies evaluated using methods 1, 3, and 4 (Cohen k > 0.4), while the IgM results were discordant between assays. In patients with thrombosis and pregnancy losses, method 5 performed better than the others. CONCLUSION: While aPT and aPS/PT assays could be of interest from a clinical perspective, their routine performance cannot yet be recommended because of problems connected with the reproducibility and interpretation of the results.
OBJECTIVE:Prothrombin (PT) is a target for antibodies with lupus anticoagulant (LA) activity, suggesting the possible application of anti-prothrombin antibody (aPT) assays in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Different methods - both homemade and commercial - for the detection of aPT are available, but they seem to produce conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different assays on a set of well-characterized serum samples. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sera were gathered from 4 FIRMA institutions, and distributed to 15 participating centres. Forty-five samples were from patients positive for LA and/or anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) with or without APS, and 15 were from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients negative for antiphospholipid antibodies. The samples were evaluated for IgG and IgM antibodies using a homemade direct aPT assay (method 1), a homemade phosphatidylserine-dependent aPT assay (aPS/PT, method 2), and two different commercial kits (methods 3 and 4). In addition, a commercial kit for the detection of IgG-A-M aPT (method 5) was used. RESULTS: Inter-laboratory results for the 5 methods were not always comparable when different methods were used. Good inter-assay concordance was found for IgG antibodies evaluated using methods 1, 3, and 4 (Cohen k > 0.4), while the IgM results were discordant between assays. In patients with thrombosis and pregnancy losses, method 5 performed better than the others. CONCLUSION: While aPT and aPS/PT assays could be of interest from a clinical perspective, their routine performance cannot yet be recommended because of problems connected with the reproducibility and interpretation of the results.
Authors: Francesca Pregnolato; Cecilia B Chighizola; Susan Encabo; Zakera Shums; Gary L Norman; Armando Tripodi; Veena Chantarangkul; Tiziana Bertero; Valeria De Micheli; Maria Orietta Borghi; Pier Luigi Meroni Journal: Immunol Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.829