肝素/PF4抗体检测诊断肝素诱导的血小板减少症的有限一致性:TORADI-HIT研究分析

A. Hammerer-Lercher, H. Nilius, J. Studt, D. Tsakiris, A. Greinacher, Adriana Méndez, A. Schmidt, W. Wuillemin, B. Gerber, J. K. Kremer Hovinga, P. Vishnu, L. Graf, T. Bakchoul, M. Nagler
{"title":"肝素/PF4抗体检测诊断肝素诱导的血小板减少症的有限一致性:TORADI-HIT研究分析","authors":"A. Hammerer-Lercher, H. Nilius, J. Studt, D. Tsakiris, A. Greinacher, Adriana Méndez, A. Schmidt, W. Wuillemin, B. Gerber, J. K. Kremer Hovinga, P. Vishnu, L. Graf, T. Bakchoul, M. Nagler","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1760496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAnecdotal reports suggest that the correlation between heparin/PF4 antibody assays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is limited. To address this issue, we investigated the correlation between widely used assays and examined possible factors contributing to variability.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis is a large, prospective cohort study with 10 participating tertiary care hospitals including 1'393 patients with suspected HIT in clinical practice. HIT was defined by a positive heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA; washed-platelet reference standard test). Three different immunoassays were used to measure heparin/PF4 antibodies: chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA). Various factors that could influence the assays were examined: sex (male, female), age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), unfractionated heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis, cardiovascular surgery, and intensive care unit. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated. Z-scores, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were determined in above-mentioned subgroups of patients.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAmong 1,393 patients, 119 were classified as HIT positive (prevalence 8.5%). The median 4Ts score was 5 in patients with HIT (interquartile range, IQR, 4-6), compared to 3 in patients without (IQR 2-4). Correlations (rs) between immunoassays were weak (0.53 to 0.65). Inconsistencies between immunoassays could not be explained by further analyses of z-scored test results and DOR in subgroups of patients.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe correlation between widely used heparin/PF4 antibody assays was weak and key factors could not explain this variability. Standardization of immunoassays is requested to improve comparability.","PeriodicalId":161374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH","volume":"49 32","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limited concordance of heparin/PF4 antibody assays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: an analysis of the TORADI-HIT study.\",\"authors\":\"A. Hammerer-Lercher, H. Nilius, J. Studt, D. Tsakiris, A. Greinacher, Adriana Méndez, A. Schmidt, W. Wuillemin, B. Gerber, J. K. Kremer Hovinga, P. Vishnu, L. Graf, T. Bakchoul, M. Nagler\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0042-1760496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nAnecdotal reports suggest that the correlation between heparin/PF4 antibody assays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is limited. To address this issue, we investigated the correlation between widely used assays and examined possible factors contributing to variability.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThis is a large, prospective cohort study with 10 participating tertiary care hospitals including 1'393 patients with suspected HIT in clinical practice. HIT was defined by a positive heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA; washed-platelet reference standard test). Three different immunoassays were used to measure heparin/PF4 antibodies: chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA). Various factors that could influence the assays were examined: sex (male, female), age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), unfractionated heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis, cardiovascular surgery, and intensive care unit. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated. Z-scores, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were determined in above-mentioned subgroups of patients.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nAmong 1,393 patients, 119 were classified as HIT positive (prevalence 8.5%). The median 4Ts score was 5 in patients with HIT (interquartile range, IQR, 4-6), compared to 3 in patients without (IQR 2-4). Correlations (rs) between immunoassays were weak (0.53 to 0.65). Inconsistencies between immunoassays could not be explained by further analyses of z-scored test results and DOR in subgroups of patients.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nThe correlation between widely used heparin/PF4 antibody assays was weak and key factors could not explain this variability. Standardization of immunoassays is requested to improve comparability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":161374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH\",\"volume\":\"49 32\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760496\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多份报告显示,肝素/PF4抗体检测诊断肝素性血小板减少症(HIT)的相关性有限。为了解决这个问题,我们调查了广泛使用的测定方法之间的相关性,并检查了导致变异的可能因素。方法:本研究是一项大型前瞻性队列研究,纳入10家三级医院,包括1393例临床疑似HIT患者。HIT是通过肝素诱导的血小板活化试验(HIPA;洗涤血小板参考标准试验)。采用三种不同的免疫分析法检测肝素/PF4抗体:化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)、酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)和颗粒凝胶免疫分析法(PaGIA)。研究了可能影响检测结果的各种因素:性别(男性、女性)、年龄(< 65岁、≥65岁)、未分级肝素暴露、血栓形成、心血管手术和重症监护病房。计算Spearman相关系数。对上述亚组患者进行z评分和诊断优势比(DOR)测定。结果1393例患者中,HIT阳性119例(患病率8.5%)。HIT患者的中位4Ts评分为5分(四分位数范围,IQR, 4-6),而无HIT患者的中位4Ts评分为3分(IQR -4)。免疫测定之间的相关性(rs)较弱(0.53 ~ 0.65)。免疫测定之间的不一致性不能通过进一步分析z评分测试结果和患者亚组的DOR来解释。结论广泛应用的肝素/PF4抗体检测之间相关性较弱,关键因素不能解释这种差异。要求标准化免疫测定以提高可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Limited concordance of heparin/PF4 antibody assays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: an analysis of the TORADI-HIT study.
BACKGROUND Anecdotal reports suggest that the correlation between heparin/PF4 antibody assays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is limited. To address this issue, we investigated the correlation between widely used assays and examined possible factors contributing to variability. METHODS This is a large, prospective cohort study with 10 participating tertiary care hospitals including 1'393 patients with suspected HIT in clinical practice. HIT was defined by a positive heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA; washed-platelet reference standard test). Three different immunoassays were used to measure heparin/PF4 antibodies: chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA). Various factors that could influence the assays were examined: sex (male, female), age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), unfractionated heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis, cardiovascular surgery, and intensive care unit. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated. Z-scores, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were determined in above-mentioned subgroups of patients. RESULTS Among 1,393 patients, 119 were classified as HIT positive (prevalence 8.5%). The median 4Ts score was 5 in patients with HIT (interquartile range, IQR, 4-6), compared to 3 in patients without (IQR 2-4). Correlations (rs) between immunoassays were weak (0.53 to 0.65). Inconsistencies between immunoassays could not be explained by further analyses of z-scored test results and DOR in subgroups of patients. CONCLUSIONS The correlation between widely used heparin/PF4 antibody assays was weak and key factors could not explain this variability. Standardization of immunoassays is requested to improve comparability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信