PubMed · 10788297
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S M Johnson, R D Aller. 2000. Weeding out the wrong coagulation analyzer.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10788297/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
Large potency discrepancies between the chromogenic and one-stage clotting methods have been reported for patients' plasma samples following the infusion of recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) concentrates. We have investigated the potency estimation of two different full-length rFVIII concentrates using both assay methods relative to both plasma and concentrate standards. Potencies by the chromogenic method were significantly higher (53% and 45%) than potencies by the one-stage clotting method when a plasma standard was used. In contrast, there was no significant potency difference between methods when a concentrate standard was used. Time-course studies into thrombin and activated factor X (FXa) generation, in modified clotting and chromogenic methods, respectively, revealed that the two rFVIII concentrates behaved very similarly to the concentrate standard, whereas the plasma standard showed slightly more rapid thrombin generation and markedly slower FXa generation. The different behaviour of rFVIII and plasma FVIII in the chromogenic method is proposed as the main cause of the methods-based potency discrepancy. The results support the use of a concentrate standard to measure rFVIII in post-infusion plasma.