INTRODUCTION: Only ± 50% of patients with type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD) have recognized molecular defects and diagnosis still rests on demonstrating low plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) protein/function. However, no generalized consensus exists regarding the type and number of VWF variables that should be considered for diagnosis. AIM: To compare the quantitative impact of four different criteria to diagnose type 1 VWD. METHODS: We tested four laboratory criteria on 4298 laboratory studies during a 5-year period. The first was the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation, which diagnoses type 1 VWD with plasma VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and VWF ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo) < 30 IU dL(-1) and possible VWD/'low VWF' with values between 30 and 50 IU dL(-1) . Second, diagnosis was established when two of three variables, VWF:Ag, VWF:RCo, VWF collagen binding assay (VWF:CB), were ≤ 2.5th percentile. Diagnostic criterion for possible VWD/'low VWF' using percentiles was also described. The third criterion (European Group on von Willebrand Disease, EUVWD), uses a plasma level of VWF:RCo (or VWF:CB) ≤ 40 IU dL(-1) for diagnosis. Finally, the Zimmerman Program for the Molecular and Clinical Biology of VWD (ZPMCBVWD) diagnoses VWD if VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo are ≤ 40 IU dL(-1) . RESULTS: The three assays had high correlation and excellent agreement at levels < 120 IU dL(-1) . The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation was followed to diagnose 122 (2.8%) patients with type 1 VWD and 704 (16.4%) with possible VWD/'low VWF.' Using percentiles, the diagnosis of type 1 VWD increased to 280 (6.5%) patients; 169 (3.9%) patients had possible VWD and 180 (4.2%) patients had 'low VWF.' Diagnoses using EUVWD and ZPMCBVWD criteria increased to 339 (7.9%) and 357 (8.3%) patients, respectively. DISCUSSION: Identical data, analyzed using different criteria, led to almost three-fold difference (2.8-8.3%) in diagnostic rate. This increase is mostly explained by increasing the cut-off values of VWF measurements from < 30 to ≈ 40 IU dL(-1) . Further refinement of the laboratory diagnosis of type 1 VWD is a priority.
INTRODUCTION: Only ± 50% of patients with type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD) have recognized molecular defects and diagnosis still rests on demonstrating low plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) protein/function. However, no generalized consensus exists regarding the type and number of VWF variables that should be considered for diagnosis. AIM: To compare the quantitative impact of four different criteria to diagnose type 1 VWD. METHODS: We tested four laboratory criteria on 4298 laboratory studies during a 5-year period. The first was the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation, which diagnoses type 1 VWD with plasma VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and VWF ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo) < 30 IU dL(-1) and possible VWD/'low VWF' with values between 30 and 50 IU dL(-1) . Second, diagnosis was established when two of three variables, VWF:Ag, VWF:RCo, VWF collagen binding assay (VWF:CB), were ≤ 2.5th percentile. Diagnostic criterion for possible VWD/'low VWF' using percentiles was also described. The third criterion (European Group on von Willebrand Disease, EUVWD), uses a plasma level of VWF:RCo (or VWF:CB) ≤ 40 IU dL(-1) for diagnosis. Finally, the Zimmerman Program for the Molecular and Clinical Biology of VWD (ZPMCBVWD) diagnoses VWD if VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo are ≤ 40 IU dL(-1) . RESULTS: The three assays had high correlation and excellent agreement at levels < 120 IU dL(-1) . The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation was followed to diagnose 122 (2.8%) patients with type 1 VWD and 704 (16.4%) with possible VWD/'low VWF.' Using percentiles, the diagnosis of type 1 VWD increased to 280 (6.5%) patients; 169 (3.9%) patients had possible VWD and 180 (4.2%) patients had 'low VWF.' Diagnoses using EUVWD and ZPMCBVWD criteria increased to 339 (7.9%) and 357 (8.3%) patients, respectively. DISCUSSION: Identical data, analyzed using different criteria, led to almost three-fold difference (2.8-8.3%) in diagnostic rate. This increase is mostly explained by increasing the cut-off values of VWF measurements from < 30 to ≈ 40 IU dL(-1) . Further refinement of the laboratory diagnosis of type 1 VWD is a priority.
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: 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: Daniela Hirigoyen; Paula I Burgos; Veronica Mezzano; Josefina Duran; Magaly Barrientos; Claudia G Saez; Olga Panes; Diego Mezzano; Mirentxu Iruretagoyena Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 5.156