BACKGROUND: Mild platelet function disorders (PFDs) are complex and difficult to diagnose. The current gold standard test, light transmission aggregometry (LTA), including lumi-aggregometry, is time and labour intensive and blood samples must be processed within a limited time after venepuncture. Furthermore, many subjects with suspected PFDs do not show a platelet abnormality on LTA. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic potential of an easy-to-use remote platelet function test (RPFT) as a diagnostic pre-test for suspected PFDs. METHODS: A remote platelet function test was compared with lumi-aggregometry in participants recruited to the Genotyping and Phenotyping of Platelets Study (GAPP, ISRCTN 77951167). For the RPFT, whole blood was stimulated with platelet agonists, stabilized with PAMFix and returned to the central laboratory for analysis of P-selectin and CD63 by flow cytometry. RESULTS: For the 61 study participants (42 index cases and 19 relatives) there was a good agreement between lumi-aggregometry and the RPFT, with diagnosis being concordant in 84% of cases (κ = 0.668, P < 0.0001). According to both tests, 29 participants were identified to have a deficiency in platelet function and 22 participants appeared normal. There were four participants where lumi-aggregometry revealed a defect but the RPFT did not, and six participants where the RPFT detected an abnormal platelet response that was not identified by lumi-aggregometry. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the RPFT could be an easy-to-use pre-test to select which participants with bleeding disorders would benefit from extensive platelet phenotyping. Further development and evaluation of the test are warranted in a wider population of patients with excessive bleeding and could provide informative screening tests for PFDs.
BACKGROUND: Mild platelet function disorders (PFDs) are complex and difficult to diagnose. The current gold standard test, light transmission aggregometry (LTA), including lumi-aggregometry, is time and labour intensive and blood samples must be processed within a limited time after venepuncture. Furthermore, many subjects with suspected PFDs do not show a platelet abnormality on LTA. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic potential of an easy-to-use remote platelet function test (RPFT) as a diagnostic pre-test for suspected PFDs. METHODS: A remote platelet function test was compared with lumi-aggregometry in participants recruited to the Genotyping and Phenotyping of Platelets Study (GAPP, ISRCTN 77951167). For the RPFT, whole blood was stimulated with platelet agonists, stabilized with PAMFix and returned to the central laboratory for analysis of P-selectin and CD63 by flow cytometry. RESULTS: For the 61 study participants (42 index cases and 19 relatives) there was a good agreement between lumi-aggregometry and the RPFT, with diagnosis being concordant in 84% of cases (κ = 0.668, P < 0.0001). According to both tests, 29 participants were identified to have a deficiency in platelet function and 22 participants appeared normal. There were four participants where lumi-aggregometry revealed a defect but the RPFT did not, and six participants where the RPFT detected an abnormal platelet response that was not identified by lumi-aggregometry. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the RPFT could be an easy-to-use pre-test to select which participants with bleeding disorders would benefit from extensive platelet phenotyping. Further development and evaluation of the test are warranted in a wider population of patients with excessive bleeding and could provide informative screening tests for PFDs.
Authors: F Rodeghiero; A Tosetto; T Abshire; D M Arnold; B Coller; P James; C Neunert; D Lillicrap Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: M Cattaneo; C Cerletti; P Harrison; C P M Hayward; D Kenny; D Nugent; P Nurden; A K Rao; A H Schmaier; S P Watson; F Lussana; M T Pugliano; A D Michelson Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Paul Harrison; Ian Mackie; Andrew Mumford; Carol Briggs; Ri Liesner; Mark Winter; Sam Machin Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Gillian C Lowe; Isabel Sánchez Guiu; Oliver Chapman; José Rivera; Marie Lordkipanidzé; Natalia Dovlatova; Jonathan Wilde; Steve P Watson; Neil V Morgan Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Johanna P van Geffen; Sanne L N Brouns; Joana Batista; Harriet McKinney; Carly Kempster; Magdolna Nagy; Suthesh Sivapalaratnam; Constance C F M J Baaten; Nikki Bourry; Mattia Frontini; Kerstin Jurk; Manuela Krause; Daniele Pillitteri; Frauke Swieringa; Remco Verdoold; Rachel Cavill; Marijke J E Kuijpers; Willem H Ouwehand; Kate Downes; Johan W M Heemskerk Journal: Haematologica Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Ivar van Asten; Maaike Blaauwgeers; Lianne Granneman; Harry F G Heijnen; Marieke J H A Kruip; Erik A M Beckers; Michiel Coppens; Jeroen Eikenboom; Rienk Y J Tamminga; Gerard Pasterkamp; Albert Huisman; Karin P M van Galen; Suzanne J A Korporaal; Roger E G Schutgens; Rolf T Urbanus Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Isabel Sánchez-Guiu; Ana I Antón; José Padilla; Francisco Velasco; José F Lucia; Miguel Lozano; Ana Rosa Cid; Teresa Sevivas; María F Lopez-Fernandez; Vicente Vicente; Consuelo González-Manchón; José Rivera; María L Lozano Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: D Westmoreland; M Shaw; W Grimes; D J Metcalf; J J Burden; K Gomez; A E Knight; D F Cutler Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Dana Huskens; Yaqiu Sang; Joke Konings; Lisa van der Vorm; Bas de Laat; Hilde Kelchtermans; Mark Roest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.240