Favaloro E J
Department of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Western Sydney Area Health Service, NSW, Australia.
Thromb Haemost. 2000 Jan;83(1):127-35.
A large number of different collagen preparations [n = 21] have been assessed for their ability to both detect von Willebrands Disease (VWD), and discriminate different VWD subtypes. Collagen preparations were tested at a range of concentrations and included: Type I, III and IV, and various mixtures of these, as aqueous supplied preparations and/or reconstituted from bulk lyophilised stock. Tissue sources for collagens ranged from human placenta to calf skin to equine tendon. Three of the collagen preparations tested did not support von Willebrand factor (VWF) binding in an ELISA process (therefore unable to detect VWD). The ability of the remaining preparations to detect VWF was variable, as was their ability to discriminate VWD subtypes. Detection of VWF and discrimination of VWD subtypes was not mutually inclusive. Thus, some collagen preparations provided excellent detection systems for VWF, but comparatively poorer discrimination of Type 2 VWD, while others provided good to acceptable detection and discrimination. Subtype discrimination was also dependent on the collagen concentration, and some batch to batch variation was evident with some preparations (particularly Type I collagens). Overall, best discrimination was typically achieved with Type I/III collagen mixtures, or Type III collagen preparations (where effectiveness was highly dependent on concentration). Good discrimination was also achieved with a commercial Type III collagen based VWF:CBA kit method. Results of the various 'VWF:CBA assays' are also compared with those using the Ristocetin Cofactor (VWF:RCof) assay (by platelet agglutination) and that using a commercial 'VWF:RCof-alternative/activity' ELISA procedure. These latter methodologies tended to be less sensitive to VWF-discordance when compared to that detected by the majority of the VWF:CBA procedures.
大量不同的胶原蛋白制剂(n = 21)已被评估其检测血管性血友病(VWD)以及区分不同VWD亚型的能力。胶原蛋白制剂在一系列浓度下进行了测试,包括:I型、III型和IV型,以及它们的各种混合物,以水性供应制剂和/或从冻干原料药复溶的形式存在。胶原蛋白的组织来源从人胎盘到小牛皮肤再到马肌腱不等。测试的三种胶原蛋白制剂在ELISA过程中不支持血管性血友病因子(VWF)结合(因此无法检测VWD)。其余制剂检测VWF的能力各不相同,区分VWD亚型的能力也是如此。VWF的检测和VWD亚型的区分并非相互包含。因此,一些胶原蛋白制剂为VWF提供了出色的检测系统,但对2型VWD的区分相对较差,而其他制剂则提供了良好到可接受的检测和区分能力。亚型区分也取决于胶原蛋白浓度,一些制剂(特别是I型胶原蛋白)存在明显的批次间差异。总体而言,通常使用I/III型胶原蛋白混合物或III型胶原蛋白制剂可实现最佳区分(其有效性高度依赖于浓度)。基于商业III型胶原蛋白的VWF:CBA试剂盒方法也实现了良好的区分。还将各种“VWF:CBA检测”的结果与使用瑞斯托霉素辅因子(VWF:RCof)检测(通过血小板凝集)以及使用商业“VWF:RCof替代/活性”ELISA程序的结果进行了比较。与大多数VWF:CBA程序检测到的情况相比,后两种方法对VWF不一致性的敏感性往往较低。