Download PDF
Semin Thromb Hemost 2008; 34(4): 389-410
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1085482
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Laboratory Testing and Identification of Antiphospholipid Antibodies and the Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Potpourri of Problems, a Compilation of Possible Solutions

Emmanuel J. Favaloro1 , Richard C.W Wong2
  • 1Department of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), Westmead Hospital, NSW, Australia
  • 2Division of Immunology, Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2008 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterized by vascular thromboses and/or pregnancy morbidity, and its diagnosis currently requires laboratory evidence of the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). aPL are in turn identified using a large number of laboratory procedures based on one of two distinct test processes, namely solid-phase assays and liquid-phase assays. The former includes anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies, and the latter are centered on clot-based tests that are used to identify the so-called lupus anticoagulant. The current article provides an overview of the laboratory testing and identification of aPL, and in particular the limitations, standardization, and clinical utility of such testing. We also review preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues that compromise the clinical utility of these tests. Finally, we provide a list of recommendations aimed to foster broader international cooperation to assist in the preparation of integrated guidelines, for both solid-phase and liquid-phase assays, and for laboratory testing, clinical ordering, and interpretation.

KEYWORDS

Antiphospholipid antibodies - aPL - antiphospholipid syndrome - APS - lupus anticoagulant - LA - anticardiolipin antibody - aCL - anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies - anti-β2GPI - laboratory testing - criteria - standardization - analytical variables - preanalytical variables - postanalytical variables - extraanalytical variables

REFERENCES

  • 1 Miyakis S, Lockshin M D, Atsumi T et al.. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).  J Thromb Haemost. 2006;  4 295-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wong R CW, Favaloro E J. Preface.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 213-218
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Favaloro E J, Wong R CW. Preface.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 309-312
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hughes G. Hughes syndrome. The antiphospholipid syndrome—a clinical overview.  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2007;  32 3-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wong R CW, Favaloro E J. Clinical features, diagnosis and management of antiphospholipid antibodies and the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 295-304
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Andreoli L, Rizzini S, Allegri F, Meroni P, Tincani A. Are the current attempts at standardization of antiphospholipid antibodies still useful? Emerging technologies signal a shift in direction.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 356-360
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Galli M. Clinical utility of laboratory tests used to identify antiphospholipid antibodies and to diagnose the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 329-334
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Galli M, Luciani D, Bertolini G, Barbui T. Antib2-glycoprotein I, antiprothrombin antibodies and the risk of thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Blood. 2003;  102 2717-2723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Galli M, Luciani D, Bertolini G, Barbui T. Lupus anticoagulants are stronger risk factors of thrombosis than anticardiolipin antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review of the literature.  Blood. 2003;  101 1827-1832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Galli M, Barbui T. Antiphospholipid syndrome: clinical and diagnostic utility of laboratory tests.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 17-24
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Oku K, Atsumi T, Amengual O, Koike T. Antiprothrombin antibody testing: detection and clinical utility.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 335-339
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pierangeli S S, Harris E N. A quarter of a century in anticardiolipin antibody testing and attempted standardization has led us to here, which is?.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 313-328
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wilson W A, Gharavi A E, Koike T et al.. International consensus statement on preliminary classification for definite antiphospholipid syndrome.  Arthritis Rheum. 1999;  42 1309-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Groot P G, Derksen R HWM, de Laat B. Twenty-two years of failure to set up undisputed assays to detect patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 347-355
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Reber G, Boehlen F, de Moerloose P. Technical aspects in laboratory testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: is standardization an impossible dream?.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 340-346
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tincani A, Allegri F, Sanmarco M et al.. Anticardiolipin antibody assay: a methodological analysis for a better consensus in routine determinations—a cooperative project of the European Antiphospholipid Forum.  Thromb Haemost. 2001;  86 575-583
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tincani A, Allegri F, Balestrieri G et al.. Minimal requirements for antiphospholipid antibodies ELISAs proposed by the European Forum on antiphospholipid antibodies.  Thromb Res. 2004;  114 553-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wong R CW, Gillis D, Adelstein S et al.. Consensus guidelines on anti-cardiolipin antibody testing and reporting.  Pathology. 2004;  361 63-68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wong R C, Favaloro E J, Adelstein S et al.. Consensus guidelines on anti-beta2 glycoprotein I testing and reporting.  Pathology. 2008;  40 58-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Green D, Hougie C, Kazmier F J et al.. Report of the Working Party on Acquired Inhibitors of Coagulation: studies of the “lupus” anticoagulant.  Thromb Haemost. 1983;  49 144-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Exner T, Triplett D A, Taberner D, Machin S J. Guidelines for testing and revised criteria for lupus anticoagulants. SSC Subcommittee for the Standardization of Lupus Anticoagulants.  Thromb Haemost. 1991;  65 320-322
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brandt J T, Triplett D A, Alving B, Scharrer I. Criteria for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants: an update. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the ISTH.  Thromb Haemost. 1995;  74 1185-1190
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Greaves M, Cohen H, Machin S J, Mackie I. Guidelines on the investigation and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Br J Haematol. 2000;  109 704-715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wong R CW, Favaloro E J. A consensus approach to the standardization of laboratory testing and reporting of antiphospholipid antibody assays.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 361-372
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Asherson R A. The primary, secondary, catastrophic and seronegative variants of the antiphospholipid syndrome: a personal history long in the making.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 227-235
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Galli M, Reber G, De Moerloose P, deGroot P G. Invitation to a debate on the serological criteria that define the antiphospholipid syndrome.  J Thromb Haemost. 2008;  6 399-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Helbert M, Bodger S, Cavenagh J et al.. Optimising testing for phospholipids antibodies.  J Clin Pathol. 2001;  54 693-698
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wong R CW, Adelstein S, Gillis D, Favaloro E J. Development of consensus guidelines for anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant testing.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 39-48
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;  1 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Favaloro E J. Standardization, regulation, quality assurance and emerging technologies in hemostasis: issues, controversies, benefits and limitations.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2007;  33 290-297
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ichikawa K, Tsutsumi A, Atsumi T et al.. A chimeric antibody with the human gamma1 constant region as a putative standard for assays to detect IgG beta2-glycoprotein I-dependent anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies.  Arthritis Rheum. 1999;  42 2461-2470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Reber G, Tincani A, Sanmarco M, de Moerloose P, Boffa M C. European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Standardization Group . Variability of anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies measurement by commercial assays.  Thromb Haemost. 2005;  94 665-672
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lewis D A, Pound M L, Ortel T L. The reactivity of paired plasma and serum samples are comparable in the anticardiolipin and anti-b2-glycoprotein-1 ELISAs.  J Thromb Haemost. 2006;  4 265-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lewis D A, Pound M L, Ortel T L. The reactivity of paired plasma and serum samples are comparable in the anticardiolipin and anti-b2-glycoprotein-1 ELISAs. Reply to a rebuttal.  J Thromb Haemost. 2006;  4 1435-1437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Manoussakis M N, Tzioufas A G, Silis M P, Pange P J, Goudevenos J, Moutsopoulos H M. High prevalence of anti-cardiolipin and other autoantibodies in a healthy elderly population.  Clin Exp Immunol. 1987;  69 557-565
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 El-Roeiy A, Gleicher N. Definition of normal autoantibody levels in an apparently healthy population.  Obstet Gynecol. 1988;  72 596-602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shi W, Krilis S A, Chong B H, Gordon S, Chesterman C N. Prevalence of lupus anticoagulant and anticardiolipin antibodies in a healthy population.  Aust N Z J Med. 1990;  20 231-236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wong R CW, Wilson R J, Pollock W, Steele R H, Gillis D. Anti-cardiolipin antibody testing and reporting practices among laboratories participating in a large external quality assurance program.  Pathology. 2004;  36 174-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hunt B J. Paediatric antiphospholipid antibodies and antiphospholipid syndrome.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 274-281
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ledford-Kraemer M R. Laboratory testing for lupus anticoagulants: pre-examination variables, mixing studies and diagnostic criteria.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 380-388
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tripodi A. Laboratory testing for lupus anticoagulants: diagnostic criteria and use of screening, mixing and confirmatory studies.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 373-379
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute .Collection, Transport, and Processing of Blood Specimens for Testing Plasma-Based Coagulation Assays and Molecular Hemostasis Assays: Approved Guideline. Fifth ed. Wayne, PA; Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute 2007 Document H21–A5
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Favaloro E J. Preanalytical variables in coagulation testing.  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2007;  18 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Watson H G, Greaves M. Can we predict bleeding?.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 97-103
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chee Y L, Crawford J C, Watson H G, Greaves M. Guidelines on the assessment of bleeding risk prior to surgery or invasive procedures. British Committee for Standards in Haematology.  Br J Haematol. 2008;  140 496-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Favaloro E J, Bonar R, Duncan E et al.. (on behalf of the RCPA QAP in Haematology Haemostasis Committee). Identification of factor inhibitors by diagnostic haemostasis laboratories: a large multicenter evaluation.  Thromb Haemost. 2006;  96 73-78
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Favaloro E J, Bonar R, Duncan E et al.. (on behalf of the RCPA QAP in Haematology Haemostasis Committee). Misidentification of factor inhibitors by diagnostic haemostasis laboratories: recognition of pitfalls and elucidation of strategies. A follow up to a large multicentre evaluation.  Pathology. 2007;  39 504-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Job Harenberg , Wehling M. Current and future prospects for anticoagulant therapy: inhibitors of factor Xa and factor IIa.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 39-57
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Arnout J. Antiphospholipid syndrome: diagnostic aspects of lupus anticoagulants.  Thromb Haemost. 2001;  86 83-91
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Aboud M, Roddie C, Ward C, Coyle L. To mix with pooled normal plasma or not to mix: a comparative study of two approaches to assess lupus anticoagulant inhibitory activity in the dilute Russell Viper venom method.  Clin Chem. 2007;  53 143-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Thom J, Ivey L, Eikelboom J. Normal plasma mixing studies in the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant.  J Thromb Haemost. 2003;  1 2689-2691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Jennings I, Kitchen S, Woods T AL, Preston F E, Greaves M. Clinically important inaccuracies in testing for the lupus anticoagulant: an analysis of results from three surveys of the UK NEQAS for Blood Coagulation.  Thromb Haemost. 1997;  77 934-937
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Favaloro E J, Wong R, Silvestrini R, McEvoy R, Jovanovich S, Roberts-Thompson P. A multi-laboratory peer-assessment quality assurance program based evaluation of anti-cardiolipin antibody, and beta-2-glycoprotein-1 antibody, testing.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 73-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Favaloro E J, Wong R CW, Jovanovich S, Roberts-Thomson P. A review of beta-2-glycoprotein-I antibody testing results from a peer-driven multi-laboratory quality assurance program.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;  127 441-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Favaloro E J, Silvestrini R, Mohammed A. Clinical utility of anticardiolipin antibody assays: high inter-laboratory variation and limited consensus by participants of external quality assurance programs signals a cautious approach.  Pathology. 1999;  31 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Favaloro E J, Silvestrini R. Assessing the utility of anticardiolipin antibody assays: a cautious approach is suggested by high variation and limited consensus in multi-laboratory testing.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;  118 548-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Roussi J, Roisin J P, Goguel A. Lupus anticoagulants. First French interlaboratory Etalonorm survey.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;  105 788-793
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Favaloro E J, Bonar R, Sioufi J et al.. (on behalf of the RCPA QAP in Haematology). Multi-laboratory testing of thrombophilia: current and past practice in Australasia as assessed through the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program in Haematology.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 49-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Jennings I, Greaves M, Mackie I J, Kitchen S, Woods T A, Preston F E. UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Blood Coagulation. Lupus anticoagulant testing: improvements in performance in a UK NEQAS proficiency testing exercise after dissemination of national guidelines on laboratory methods.  Br J Haematol. 2002;  119 364-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Arnout J, Meijer P, Vermylen J. Lupus anticoagulant testing in Europe: an analysis of results from the first European Concerted Action on Thrombophilia (ECAT) survey using plasmas spiked with monoclonal antibodies against human beta2-glycoprotein I.  Thromb Haemost. 1999;  81 929-934
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Tripodi A, Biasiolo A, Chantarangkul V, Pengo V. Lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing: performance of clinical laboratories assessed by a national survey using lyophilized affinity-purified immunoglobulin with LA activity.  Clin Chem. 2003;  49 1608-1614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Reber G, Arvieux J, Comby E et al.. Multicenter evaluation of nine commercial kits for the quantitation of anticardiolipin antibodies. The Working Group on Methodologies in Haemostasis from the GEHT (Groupe d'Etudes sur l'Hémostase et la Thrombose).  Thromb Haemost. 1995;  73 444-452
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Reber G, Schousboe I, Tincani A et al.. Inter-laboratory variability of anti-beta2-glycoprotein I measurement. A collaborative study in the frame of the European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Standardization Group.  Thromb Haemost. 2002;  88 66-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Harris E N, Pierangeli S S. Primary, secondary and catastrophic syndrome: what is in a name?.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2008;  34 219-226
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. Emmanuel J Favaloro

Department of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR)

Westmead Hospital, SWAHS, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia

Email: emmanuel.favaloro@swahs.health.nsw.gov.au