Suppr超能文献

一项针对2型血管性血友病患者,使用4种不同的血小板依赖性血管性血友病因子检测方法的对比研究。

A comparative study in patients with type 2 von Willebrand disease using 4 different platelet-dependent von Willebrand factor assays.

作者信息

Colpani Paola, Baronciani Luciano, Stufano Francesca, Cozzi Giovanna, Boscarino Marco, Pagliari Maria Teresa, Biguzzi Eugenia, Peyvandi Flora

机构信息

Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Angelo Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Milan, Italy.

Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023 Mar 30;7(3):100139. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100139. eCollection 2023 Mar.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several assays are now available to evaluate platelet-dependent von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity.

OBJECTIVE

To report the results obtained using 4 different assays in patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) carrying variants mainly in the A1 domain, which is critical for VWF binding to glycoprotein Ib (GPIb) and ristocetin.

METHODS

We evaluated 4 different assays, 2 gain-of-function mutant GPIb binding (VWF:GPIbM) and 2 ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo) assays, in 76 patients with type 2 VWD. Patients and healthy controls were tested using VWF:GPIbM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), VWF:GPIbM automated, VWF:RCo aggregometric, and VWF:RCo automated assays.

RESULTS

There was a good correlation (Pearson's r>0.82) and agreement (Bland-Altman plots assessment) between the 4 assays, although several outliers existed among the type 2B without high-molecular-weight multimers (HMWM). The VWF activity/VWF:antigen ratios, calculated for each assay, were used to establish the percentage of a correct diagnosis of type 2 (ratio<0.60) in these patients: VWF:RCo aggregometric, 2A(100%), 2M(78%), 2M/2A(100%), 2B(68%); VWF:RCo automated, 2A(88%), 2M(89%), 2M/2A(100%), 2B(63%); VWF:GPIbM ELISA, 2A(96%), 2M(67%), 2M/2A(67%), 2B(0%); VWF:GPIbM automated, 2A(73%), 2M(44%), 2M/2A(75%), 2B(84%). In type 2B patients with HMWM, all assays gave a ratio ≥0.60.

CONCLUSION

The VWF:GPIbM-automated assay is the most effective to diagnose as type 2 the 2B variants, whereas the VWF:RCo assays are the most effective in detecting 2M and 2M/2A variants. The VWF:GPIbM ELISA greatly overestimates the activity of the type 2B patients lacking HMWM. In this study, the use of a VWF activity/VWF:antigen ratio cut-off of 0.70 halved the number of misdiagnosed patients.

摘要

背景

目前有几种检测方法可用于评估血小板依赖性血管性血友病因子(VWF)活性。

目的

报告在主要携带A1结构域变异的血管性血友病(VWD)患者中使用4种不同检测方法所获得的结果,A1结构域对于VWF与糖蛋白Ib(GPIb)结合以及瑞斯托霉素至关重要。

方法

我们对76例2型VWD患者评估了4种不同检测方法,即2种功能获得性突变GPIb结合(VWF:GPIbM)检测方法和2种瑞斯托霉素辅因子(VWF:RCo)检测方法。使用VWF:GPIbM酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)、VWF:GPIbM自动化检测、VWF:RCo凝集检测和VWF:RCo自动化检测对患者和健康对照进行检测。

结果

4种检测方法之间存在良好的相关性(Pearson相关系数r>0.82)和一致性(Bland-Altman图评估),尽管在无高分子量多聚体(HMWM)的2B型患者中有几个离群值。为每种检测方法计算的VWF活性/VWF:抗原比值用于确定这些患者中2型正确诊断的百分比(比值<0.60):VWF:RCo凝集检测,2A(100%),2M(78%),2M/2A(100%),2B(68%);VWF:RCo自动化检测,2A(88%),2M(89%),2M/2A(100%),2B(63%);VWF:GPIbM ELISA,2A(96%),2M(67%),2M/2A(67%),2B(0%);VWF:GPIbM自动化检测,2A(73%),2M(44%),2M/2A(75%),2B(84%)。在有HMWM的2B型患者中,所有检测方法的比值均≥0.60。

结论

VWF:GPIbM自动化检测方法对于将2B型变异诊断为2型最为有效,而VWF:RCo检测方法在检测2M和2M/2A型变异方面最为有效。VWF:GPIbM ELISA大大高估了缺乏HMWM的2B型患者的活性。在本研究中,使用VWF活性/VWF:抗原比值截断值0.70可使误诊患者数量减半。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e992/10192922/40ad1c3172aa/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验