Emmanuel J Favaloro1, Roslyn Bonar2, Martine J Hollestelle3, Ian Jennings4, Soma Mohammed5, Piet Meijer3, Timothy Woods4, Muriel Meiring6. 1. Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), NSW Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Sydney Centres for Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Westmead, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: emmanuel.favaloro@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Royal College of Pathology of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPAQAP) Haematology, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. 3. ECAT Foundation (External quality Control for Assays and Tests), Voorschoten, The Netherlands. 4. UK NEQAS for Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK. 5. Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), NSW Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia. 6. Department of Haematology and Cell Biology, University of the Free State and National Health Laboratory Services, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common inherited bleeding disorder, is due to deficiencies/defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF). Effective diagnosis requires testing for FVIII, VWF antigen and one or more VWF 'activity' assays. Classically, 'activity' is assessed using ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo), but collagen binding (VWF:CB) and/or other assays are used by many laboratories. This extensive international cross-laboratory study has specifically evaluated contemporary VWF activity assays for comparative sensitivity to reduction in high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, and their ability to differentiate type 1 vs 2A VWD-like samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of four samples representing step wise reduction in HMW VWF were tested by over 400 laboratories worldwide using various assays. A second set of two samples representing type 1 or type 2A VWD-like plasma was tested by a subset of 251 laboratories. RESULTS: Combined data identified some differences between VWF activity assays, with sensitivity for reduction of HMW being highest for VWF:CB and VWF:GPIbM, intermediate for VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbR, and lowest for VWF:Ab. 'Within' method analysis identified the Stago method as the most sensitive VWF:CB assay. A large variation in inter-laboratory CV (e.g., 7-24% for the normal sample) was also demonstrated for various methods. Although performance of various methods differed significantly, most laboratories correctly differentiated between type 1 and 2 samples, irrespective of VWF activity assay employed. CONCLUSIONS: These results hold significant clinical implications for diagnosis and therapy monitoring of VWD, as well as potential future diagnosis and therapy monitoring of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Crown
INTRODUCTION:von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common inherited bleeding disorder, is due to deficiencies/defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF). Effective diagnosis requires testing for FVIII, VWF antigen and one or more VWF 'activity' assays. Classically, 'activity' is assessed using ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo), but collagen binding (VWF:CB) and/or other assays are used by many laboratories. This extensive international cross-laboratory study has specifically evaluated contemporary VWF activity assays for comparative sensitivity to reduction in high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, and their ability to differentiate type 1 vs 2A VWD-like samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of four samples representing step wise reduction in HMW VWF were tested by over 400 laboratories worldwide using various assays. A second set of two samples representing type 1 or type 2A VWD-like plasma was tested by a subset of 251 laboratories. RESULTS: Combined data identified some differences between VWF activity assays, with sensitivity for reduction of HMW being highest for VWF:CB and VWF:GPIbM, intermediate for VWF:RCo and VWF:GPIbR, and lowest for VWF:Ab. 'Within' method analysis identified the Stago method as the most sensitive VWF:CB assay. A large variation in inter-laboratory CV (e.g., 7-24% for the normal sample) was also demonstrated for various methods. Although performance of various methods differed significantly, most laboratories correctly differentiated between type 1 and 2 samples, irrespective of VWF activity assay employed. CONCLUSIONS: These results hold significant clinical implications for diagnosis and therapy monitoring of VWD, as well as potential future diagnosis and therapy monitoring of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Crown