Szederjesi A, Baronciani L, Budde U, Castaman G, Lawrie A S, Liu Y, Montgomery R, Peyvandi F, Schneppenheim R, Várkonyi A, Patzke J, Bodó I
Szent István and Szent László Hospital, Budapest, Hungary.
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, A. Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Milan, Italy.
J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Aug;16(8):1604-1613. doi: 10.1111/jth.14206. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
Essentials New VWF activity assays are increasingly used but information on their comparability is limited. This is an ISTH SSC-organized study (expert labs, 5 countries) to compare all available assays. VWF activity by six assays correlated well with each other. The new assays show improved characteristics - minor differences are noted. SUMMARY: Background Several new assays have become available to measure von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity. The new assays appear to have improved performance characteristics compared with the old reference standard, ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo), but information is limited about how they compare with VWF:RCo and each other. Methods The von Willebrand factor Subcommittee of the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) designed a collaborative study involving expert laboratories from several countries to compare available tests with each other and with VWF:RCo. Eight laboratories from five countries were provided with blinded samples from normal healthy individuals and well-characterized clinical cases. Laboratories measured VWF activity using all tests available to them; data from six laboratories, not affected by thawing during transportation, are included in this study. Results All tests correlated well with VWF:RCo activity (r-values ranged from 0.963 to 0.989). Slightly steeper regression lines for VWF:Ab and VWF:GPIbM were clinically insignificant. The new assays showed improved performance characteristics. Of the commercially available assays, the VWF:GPIbR using the AcuStar system was the most sensitive and could reliably detect VWF activity below 1 IU dL . The lower limit of the measuring interval for the VWF:GPIbM and the VWF:GPIbR assays was in the 3-4 and 3-6 IU dL range, respectively. Inter-laboratory variation was also improved for most new assays. Conclusion All VWF activity assays correlated well with each other and the VWF:RCo assay. The slight differences in characteristics found in the COMPASS-VWF study will assist the VWF community in interpreting and comparing activity results.
新型血管性血友病因子(VWF)活性检测方法的应用日益广泛,但关于它们之间可比性的信息却很有限。这是一项由国际血栓与止血学会(ISTH)科学和标准化委员会(SSC)组织的研究(来自5个国家的专家实验室参与),旨在比较所有可用的检测方法。六种检测方法测得的VWF活性之间相关性良好。新型检测方法显示出改进的特性——仅存在细微差异。
背景 目前已有多种新型检测方法可用于测量血管性血友病因子(VWF)活性。与旧的参考标准——瑞斯托霉素辅因子活性(VWF:RCo)相比,新型检测方法似乎具有更好的性能特征,但关于它们与VWF:RCo以及彼此之间的比较信息有限。方法 国际血栓与止血学会(ISTH)科学和标准化委员会(SSC)的血管性血友病因子小组委员会设计了一项合作研究,涉及来自多个国家的专家实验室,以相互比较可用检测方法,并与VWF:RCo进行比较。来自五个国家的八个实验室收到了来自正常健康个体和特征明确的临床病例的盲法样本。实验室使用其所有可用检测方法测量VWF活性;本研究纳入了六个未受运输过程中解冻影响的实验室的数据。结果 所有检测方法与VWF:RCo活性均具有良好的相关性(r值范围为0.963至0.989)。VWF:Ab和VWF:GPIbM的回归线斜率稍陡,但在临床上无显著意义。新型检测方法显示出改进的性能特征。在市售检测方法中,使用AcuStar系统的VWF:GPIbR最为灵敏,能够可靠地检测出低于1 IU dL的VWF活性。VWF:GPIbM和VWF:GPIbR检测方法测量区间的下限分别在3 - 4 IU dL和3 - 6 IU dL范围内。大多数新型检测方法的实验室间差异也有所改善。结论 所有VWF活性检测方法相互之间以及与VWF:RCo检测方法均具有良好的相关性。COMPASS - VWF研究中发现的特性细微差异将有助于VWF研究领域解释和比较活性结果。