Casonato A, Pontara E, Bertomoro A, Sartorello F, Cattini M G, Girolami A
University of Padua, Medical School, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Second Chair of Internal Medicine, Via Ospedale Civile 105, Padua, Italy.
Br J Haematol. 2001 Mar;112(3):578-83. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.02597.x.
The capability of von Willebrand factor (VWF) to bind platelet glycoprotein Ib (GPIb) and promote platelet plug formation is currently evaluated in vitro using the ristocetin co-factor activity (VWF:RCo) assay. The replacement of this cumbersome and not always reproducible test with the collagen binding activity of VWF (VWF:CBA) has been attempted with controversial results. To evaluate the capacity of VWF:CBA to identify classic and variant von Willebrand disease (VWD) compared with VWF:RCo, we studied 10 type 2A and 12 type 2B VWD patients, together with 30 type 1 VWD patients with reduced platelet VWF content. In both 2A and 2B VWD, VWF:CBA and VWF:RCo were decreased, but that of VWF:CBA was more consistent. The difference was more evident when values were expressed as a ratio, obtained by normalizing VWF:CBA and VWF:RCo with the VWF antigen value; the ratio for VWF:CBA was always below 0.2, while that for VWF:RCo was greater than 0.4, and in no patient was the VWF:CBA value higher than VWF:RCo. In contrast, in type 1 VWD, the decrease in VWF:CBA was similar to that seen in VWF:RCo with the ratios always within the normal range. To better investigate the relationship between VWF:CBA and VWF:RCo, and the representation of large/intermediate VWF multimers, to which both tests are sensitive, 1-deamino-cys-8-D-arginine-vasopressin (DDAVP) was infused in type 2A and 2B VWD patients. The differences between the two tests were even more evident after DDAVP, and in type 2A, even though large multimers were persistently decreased, VWF:RCo was normalized, while VWF:CBA remained defective. These findings clearly indicate that VWF:CBA detects the absence of large and intermediate VWF multimers better than VWF:RCo. Hence, we suggest adding VWF:CBA to the panel of tests employed in the diagnosis of VWD. Moreover, owing to the difficulty in performing VWF:RCo and its low reproducibility, we suggest that, when necessary, VWF:CBA may be substituted for VWF:RCo.
目前,体外利用瑞斯托菌素辅因子活性(VWF:RCo)检测法评估血管性血友病因子(VWF)结合血小板糖蛋白Ib(GPIb)并促进血小板栓形成的能力。有人尝试用VWF的胶原结合活性(VWF:CBA)取代这种繁琐且结果并非总能重现的检测方法,但结果存在争议。为了评估与VWF:RCo相比,VWF:CBA识别经典型和变异型血管性血友病(VWD)的能力,我们研究了10例2A型和12例2B型VWD患者,以及30例血小板VWF含量降低的1型VWD患者。在2A型和2B型VWD中,VWF:CBA和VWF:RCo均降低,但VWF:CBA更具一致性。当通过用VWF抗原值对VWF:CBA和VWF:RCo进行标准化得到的比值来表示数值时,差异更为明显;VWF:CBA的比值始终低于0.2,而VWF:RCo的比值大于0.4,且在任何患者中VWF:CBA值均未高于VWF:RCo。相比之下,在1型VWD中,VWF:CBA的降低与VWF:RCo相似,比值始终在正常范围内。为了更好地研究VWF:CBA与VWF:RCo之间的关系,以及两种检测方法均敏感的大/中VWF多聚体的表现,对2A型和2B型VWD患者输注了1-去氨基-半胱氨酸-8-D-精氨酸血管加压素(DDAVP)。注射DDAVP后,两种检测方法之间的差异更加明显,在2A型中,尽管大的多聚体持续减少,但VWF:RCo恢复正常,而VWF:CBA仍存在缺陷。这些发现清楚地表明,VWF:CBA比VWF:RCo能更好地检测到大和中VWF多聚体的缺失。因此,我们建议在VWD诊断所采用的检测项目中增加VWF:CBA。此外,由于VWF:RCo操作困难且重现性低,我们建议在必要时可用VWF:CBA替代VWF:RCo。