Survey of laboratory tests used in the diagnosis and evaluation of haemophilia A

Summary

Although the incidence of haemophilia A is reportedly uniform across ethnic groups, the prevalence varies in different countries. This suggests variability in the effectiveness of diagnostic strategies which is of particular importance in the recognition of milder forms of the disease. To assess the different laboratory tests that are used in the diagnosis and subsequent management of haemophilia A we carried out a web-based survey of established haemophilia centres. This was sent to 13 haemophilia physicians from haemophilia-treatment centres in Germany, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Taiwan, Norway, Canada, UK and the USA. The survey asked for details of clotting tests, the use of genetic analysis and the use of global haemostatic assays in haemophilia A cases. The results show considerable variation in the laboratory methods used for the screening, diagnosis and monitoring of haemophilia A. There is variability in the techniques used even for longstanding, standardised assays such as the one-stage factor assay. There is marked regional variability in the use of molecular diagnosis. Assessment of haemophilia A requires accurate and sensitive assays. Some laboratories continue to rely on a single-factor assay in the diagnosis of non-severe disease, although cases with assay discrepancy may be missed by this strategy. Global assays are becoming important in the evaluation and management of patients. However, standardisation and the correlation with clinical outcomes require further study. Genetic diagnosis in patients with haemophilia remains underutilised in USA, possibly because of a lack of funding.

Keywords

Haemophilia - diagnosis - laboratory assays - genetic analysis

^* GEHEP is a global panel of haemophilia physicians funded and supported by Bayer Healthcare.

• References

• 1 Oldenburg J, Pavlova A. Discrepancy between one-stage and chromogenic factor VIII activity assay results can lead to misdiagnosis of haemophilia A phenotype. Hamostaseologie 2010; 30: 207-211.
• 2 Den Uijl IE, Mauser Bunschoten EP, Roosendaal G. et al. Clinical severity of haemophilia A: does the classification of the 1950s still stand?. Haemophilia 2011; 17: 849-853.
• 3 Trossaert M, Boisseau P, Quemener A. et al. Prevalence, biological phenotype and genotype in moderate/mild hemophilia A with discrepancy between onestage and chromogenic factor VIII activity. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 09: 524-530.
• 4 Trossaert M, Regnault V, Sigaud M. et al. Mild hemophilia A with factor VIII assay discrepancy: using thrombin generation assay to assess the bleeding phenotype. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 06: 486-493.
• 5 Varadi K, Turecek PL, Schwarz HP. Thrombin generation assay and other universal tests for monitoring haemophilia therapy. Haemophilia 2004; 10 (Suppl. 02) 17-21.
• 6 Gouw SC, van den Berg HM, Oldenburg J. et al. F8 gene mutation type and inhibitor development in patients with severe hemophilia A: systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood 2012; 119: 2922-2934.
• 7 Hay CR, Ludlam CA, Colvin BT. et al. Factor VIII inhibitors in mild and moderate-severity haemophilia A. UK Haemophilia Centre Directors Organisation. Thromb Haemost 1998; 79: 762-766.
• 8 Eckhardt CL, Menke LA, van Ommen CH. et al. Intensive peri-operative use of factor VIII and the Arg593-->Cys mutation are risk factors for inhibitor development in mild/moderate hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 07: 930-937.