Pandey Soumya, Cottler-Fox Michele
Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2018 May;48(3):373-376.
ADAMTS13 testing plays a critical role in confirming the clinical diagnosis of acquired idiopathic thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and distinguishing it from other forms of thrombotic microangiopathies (TMA). Serial measurements of ADAMTS13 activity and inhibitor levels are also helpful in determining response to treatment and/or subsequent relapses. Numerous ADAMTS13 assays have been developed recently, including some with rapid turnaround times. Despite the good inter-assay correlation of different ADAMTS13 methodologies in published case studies, discrepancies have been shown to occur. Here we present a case where discrepant results were obtained using two different assays, posing a clinical treatment dilemma.
ADAMTS13检测在确诊获得性特发性血栓性血小板减少性紫癜(TTP)的临床诊断并将其与其他形式的血栓性微血管病(TMA)相区分方面发挥着关键作用。对ADAMTS13活性和抑制剂水平进行系列检测,对于确定治疗反应和/或后续复发情况也很有帮助。最近已开发出多种ADAMTS13检测方法,包括一些周转时间较短的方法。尽管在已发表的病例研究中不同ADAMTS13检测方法之间具有良好的检测间相关性,但仍显示存在差异。在此,我们报告一例使用两种不同检测方法获得不一致结果的病例,这给临床治疗带来了困境。