Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 1999; 81(05): 758-762
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1614567
Rapid Communication
Schattauer GmbH

The Sensitivity and Specificity of Commercial Reagents for the Detection of Lupus Anticoagulant Show Marked Differences in Performance between Photo-optical and Mechanical Coagulometers

A. S. Lawrie
1   From the Haemostasis Research Unit, Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK
,
I. J. Mackie
1   From the Haemostasis Research Unit, Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK
,
G. Purdy
1   From the Haemostasis Research Unit, Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK
,
S. J. Machin
1   From the Haemostasis Research Unit, Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 29 May 1998

Accepted after resubmission 08 February 1999

Publication Date:
09 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

This study was undertaken to appraise the application of those reagents most widely used in the UK for the detection and confirmation of lupus anticoagulant (LA) on an Amelung KC4A and a Sysmex CA-6000™ coagulometer. Five sets of dilute Russell’s viper venom time (DRVVT) reagents were assessed as well as the Textarin®-PL/ Ecarin ratio. Each DRVVT method comprised both LA detection and confirmation reagents provided by the same manufacturer. Samples were obtained from 20 normal healthy subjects, 10 LA-positive patients, 10 patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) who had previously been documented as LA-positive, a further 10 LA-negative patients receiving OAT and 10 LA-negative patients receiving unfractionated heparin therapy. The sensitivity and specificity of the reagents exhibited considerable variation not only between reagents, but also when the same reagent was used on the two analysers. Sensitivity ranged from 62 to 97% (all reagents both analysers), specificity went as low as 23% (Gradipore reagent on the CA-6000™) and as high as 100% (American Diagnostica Inc on both KC4A and CA-6000™). On the KC4A instrument, Unicorn Diagnostics’ lupus anticoagulant kit offered the best compromise of sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity 83% and specificity 81%). On the CA-6000™ the reagents supplied by American Diagnostica Inc exhibited optimal performance (sensitivity 90% and specificity 100%). The results indicate a need to optimise test reagents for specific analyser types, a procedure which can only be undertaken with preparations such as the proposed NIBSC reference plasmas for the detection of lupus anticoagulant.

 

  • References

  • 1 Harris EN. Syndrome of the black swan.. Br J Rheumatol 1987; 26: 324-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Asherson RA, Khamsahta MA, Ordi Ros J, Derksen RH, Machin SJ, Barquinero J, Outt HH, Harris EN, Vilardell Torres M, Hughes GR. The “primary” antiphospholipid syndrome: major clinical and serological features.. Medicine 1989; 68: 366-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shapiro SS. The lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid syndrome.. Annual Review of Medicine 1996; 47: 533-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Harris EN, Pierangeli SS. Anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant testing and significance.. J Clin Immunoassay 1994; 17: 108-17.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pauzner R, Rosner E, Many A. Circulating anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical manifestations.. Acta Haematologica 1986; 76: 90-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Conley CL, Hartmann RC. Haemorrhagic disorder caused by circulating anticoagulant in patients with disseminated lupus erythematosus.. J Clin Investig 1952; 31: 621-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Roubey RAS, Hoffman M. From antiphospholipid syndrome to antibody-mediated thrombosis.. Lancet 1997; 350: 1491-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Carreras LO, Forastiero RR. Pathogenic role of antiprotein-phospholipid antibodies.. Haemostasis 1996; 26 (Suppl. 04) (Suppl) 340-57.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 British Society for Haematology: Guidelines on testing for lupus anticoagulant. J Clin Pathol. 1991; 44:: 885-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brandt JT, Triplett DA, Alving B, Scharrer I. Criteria for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant: An update.. Thromb Haemost 1995; 74: 1185-90.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thiagarajan P, Pengo V, Shapiro SS. The use of the dilute Russell’s viper venom time for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant.. Blood 1986; 68: 869-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Blood Coagulation. Report on Surveys 92 & 93. 1995
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Triplett DA, Stocker KF, Unger GA, Barna LK. The Textarin/Ecarin ratio: a confirmatory test for lupus anticoagulant.. Thromb Haemost 1993; 70: 925-31.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rooney AM, McNally T, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ.. The Taipan snake venom time: a new test for lupus anticoagulant.. J Clin Pathol. 1994; 47:: 497-501.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lawrie AS, Purdy G, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ. Monitoring of oral anticoagulation therapy in lupus anticoagulant positive patients with the anti-phospholipid syndrome.. Br J Haematol 1997; 98: 887-92.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Three lupus anticoagulant kits. Medical Devices Agency Evaluation Report.. MDA/98/43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wenzel E, Grillmeier P. Strategies for the scientific definition of the terms “reliability” and “predictability” of clinical and laboratory findings.. Haemostasis 1985; 15:: 5-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jennings I, Kitchen S, Woods TAL, Preston FE, Greaves M. (on behalf of the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Blood Coagulation). Potentially clinically important inaccuracies in testing for the lupus anticoagulant: An analysis of results from three surveys of the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) for Blood Coagulation.. Throm Haemost 1997; 77:: 934-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar