使用两种组合式自动快速免疫测定评估肝素诱发血小板减少症的诊断算法。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1786749
Anna-Lise Bissola, Yi Zhang, Madison Cranstone, Jane C Moore, Theodore E Warkentin, Donald M Arnold, Ishac Nazy
{"title":"使用两种组合式自动快速免疫测定评估肝素诱发血小板减少症的诊断算法。","authors":"Anna-Lise Bissola, Yi Zhang, Madison Cranstone, Jane C Moore, Theodore E Warkentin, Donald M Arnold, Ishac Nazy","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1786749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an autoimmune disorder caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin complexes. Rapid immunoassays (IAs) for detection of these antibodies mark a milestone in HIT diagnosis, despite a higher false-positive rate compared with functional platelet-activation assays. However, combining different rapid IAs may help to improve their diagnostic specificity. Here, we compared the individual performance of the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA; HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 68.4%) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 92.4%, specificity 85.8%) with their combined performance using two unique diagnostic algorithms in a single prospective cohort of suspected HIT patients. Using the simultaneous algorithm adapted from Warkentin et al, the combined LIA-CLIA had a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 64.3%. The sequential algorithm adapted from Rittener-Ruff et al was applied in two theoretical scenarios to reflect real-world circumstances in diagnostic laboratories where access to clinical information is limited: (1) assuming all patients had an intermediate 4Ts score and (2) assuming all patients had a high 4Ts score. This algorithm correctly predicted HIT in 94.5% (high 4Ts) and 96.0% (intermediate 4Ts) and excluded HIT in 82.6% (high 4Ts) and 80.1% (intermediate 4Ts) of patients in either scenario, respectively. Although both combined algorithms improved diagnostic performance of individual IAs, the simultaneous algorithm showed fewer false predictions (7.9%) than the sequential algorithm (intermediate 4Ts: 37.6% and high 4Ts: 41.5%) and proved more practical as it does not rely on physician evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for clinician and interlaboratory variability when evaluating diagnostic tests for HIT.</p>","PeriodicalId":21673,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","volume":" ","pages":"1123-1130"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Diagnostic Algorithms for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia using Two Combined Automated Rapid Immunoassays.\",\"authors\":\"Anna-Lise Bissola, Yi Zhang, Madison Cranstone, Jane C Moore, Theodore E Warkentin, Donald M Arnold, Ishac Nazy\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1786749\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an autoimmune disorder caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin complexes. Rapid immunoassays (IAs) for detection of these antibodies mark a milestone in HIT diagnosis, despite a higher false-positive rate compared with functional platelet-activation assays. However, combining different rapid IAs may help to improve their diagnostic specificity. Here, we compared the individual performance of the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA; HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 68.4%) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 92.4%, specificity 85.8%) with their combined performance using two unique diagnostic algorithms in a single prospective cohort of suspected HIT patients. Using the simultaneous algorithm adapted from Warkentin et al, the combined LIA-CLIA had a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 64.3%. The sequential algorithm adapted from Rittener-Ruff et al was applied in two theoretical scenarios to reflect real-world circumstances in diagnostic laboratories where access to clinical information is limited: (1) assuming all patients had an intermediate 4Ts score and (2) assuming all patients had a high 4Ts score. This algorithm correctly predicted HIT in 94.5% (high 4Ts) and 96.0% (intermediate 4Ts) and excluded HIT in 82.6% (high 4Ts) and 80.1% (intermediate 4Ts) of patients in either scenario, respectively. Although both combined algorithms improved diagnostic performance of individual IAs, the simultaneous algorithm showed fewer false predictions (7.9%) than the sequential algorithm (intermediate 4Ts: 37.6% and high 4Ts: 41.5%) and proved more practical as it does not rely on physician evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for clinician and interlaboratory variability when evaluating diagnostic tests for HIT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1123-1130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786749\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786749","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肝素诱导的血小板减少症(HIT)是一种由血小板因子 4(PF4)和肝素复合物抗体引起的自身免疫性疾病。用于检测这些抗体的快速免疫测定(IAs)是 HIT 诊断的一个里程碑,尽管与功能性血小板活化测定相比,其假阳性率更高。然而,将不同的快速免疫测定结合起来可能有助于提高其诊断特异性。在这里,我们比较了乳胶免疫比浊法(LIA;HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H];灵敏度 91.7%,特异度 68.4%)和化学发光免疫测定法(CLIA;HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H];灵敏度 92.4%,特异度 85.8%)的各自性能,以及它们在单一前瞻性疑似 HIT 患者队列中使用两种独特诊断算法的组合性能。使用改编自 Warkentin 等人的同步算法,联合 LIA-CLIA 的灵敏度为 99.0%,特异性为 64.3%。改编自 Rittener-Ruff 等人的顺序算法应用于两种理论情景,以反映诊断实验室的实际情况,因为在实验室中获取临床信息的途径有限:(1) 假设所有患者的 4Ts 得分都在中等水平;(2) 假设所有患者的 4Ts 得分都很高。在这两种情况下,该算法分别有 94.5%(高 4Ts)和 96.0%(中 4Ts)的患者能正确预测 HIT,82.6%(高 4Ts)和 80.1%(中 4Ts)的患者能排除 HIT。虽然这两种组合算法都提高了单个IAs的诊断性能,但同步算法的错误预测率(7.9%)低于顺序算法(中度4Ts:37.6%,高度4Ts:41.5%),而且证明同步算法更实用,因为它不依赖于医生的评估。我们的研究结果凸显了在评估 HIT 诊断测试时考虑临床医生和实验室间变异性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Diagnostic Algorithms for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia using Two Combined Automated Rapid Immunoassays.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an autoimmune disorder caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin complexes. Rapid immunoassays (IAs) for detection of these antibodies mark a milestone in HIT diagnosis, despite a higher false-positive rate compared with functional platelet-activation assays. However, combining different rapid IAs may help to improve their diagnostic specificity. Here, we compared the individual performance of the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA; HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 68.4%) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 92.4%, specificity 85.8%) with their combined performance using two unique diagnostic algorithms in a single prospective cohort of suspected HIT patients. Using the simultaneous algorithm adapted from Warkentin et al, the combined LIA-CLIA had a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 64.3%. The sequential algorithm adapted from Rittener-Ruff et al was applied in two theoretical scenarios to reflect real-world circumstances in diagnostic laboratories where access to clinical information is limited: (1) assuming all patients had an intermediate 4Ts score and (2) assuming all patients had a high 4Ts score. This algorithm correctly predicted HIT in 94.5% (high 4Ts) and 96.0% (intermediate 4Ts) and excluded HIT in 82.6% (high 4Ts) and 80.1% (intermediate 4Ts) of patients in either scenario, respectively. Although both combined algorithms improved diagnostic performance of individual IAs, the simultaneous algorithm showed fewer false predictions (7.9%) than the sequential algorithm (intermediate 4Ts: 37.6% and high 4Ts: 41.5%) and proved more practical as it does not rely on physician evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for clinician and interlaboratory variability when evaluating diagnostic tests for HIT.

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
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
21.10%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis is a topic driven review journal that focuses on all issues relating to hemostatic and thrombotic disorders. As one of the premiere review journals in the field, Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis serves as a comprehensive forum for important advances in clinical and laboratory diagnosis and therapeutic interventions. The journal also publishes peer reviewed original research papers. Seminars offers an informed perspective on today''s pivotal issues, including hemophilia A & B, thrombophilia, gene therapy, venous and arterial thrombosis, von Willebrand disease, vascular disorders and thromboembolic diseases. Attention is also given to the latest developments in pharmaceutical drugs along with treatment and current management techniques. The journal also frequently publishes sponsored supplements to further highlight emerging trends in the field.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信