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}
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.