Download PDF
Semin Thromb Hemost 2005; 31(1): 39-48
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-863804
Copyright © 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Development of Consensus Guidelines for Anticardiolipin and Lupus Anticoagulant Testing

Richard C. W. Wong1 , Stephen Adelstein2 , David Gillis3 , Emmanuel J. Favaloro4
  • 1Staff Specialist, Division of Immunology, Queensland Health Pathology Services, Princess Alexandra and Royal Brisbane Hospitals, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • 2Head, Department of Clinical Immunology, Central Sydney Laboratory Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales,Australia
  • 3Senior Staff Specialist, Division of Human Immunology, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, South Australia
  • 4Scientist in Charge, Haemostasis Laboratories, Department of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 February 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Interlaboratory and intermethod variation in commercial and in-house tests used for the measurement of anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and lupus anticoagulant (LA) limit the diagnostic value of the results from these tests. This short review summarizes published and unpublished guidelines (some developed using consensus procedures) on aCL and LA testing that are aimed at decreasing assay variation.

KEYWORDS

Cardiolipin - consensus guidelines - lupus anticoagulant - recommendation - standardization

REFERENCES

  • 1 Favaloro E J, Wong R CW, Silvestrini R et al.. A multilaboratory peer assessment quality assurance program-based evaluation of anticardiolipin and beta2-glycoprotein I antibody testing.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 73-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harris E N, Pierangeli S S. Revisiting the anticardiolipin test and its standardization.  Lupus. 2002;  11 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Favaloro E J, Silvestrini R. Assessing the usefulness of anticardiolipin antibody assays: a cautious approach is suggested by high variation and limited consensus in multilaboratory testing.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;  118 548-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Roberts J M, Macara L M, Chalmers E A, Smith G C. Inter-assay variation in antiphospholipid antibody testing.  BJOG. 2002;  109 348-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
  • 6 Fontaine M, Homburger H A, Nichols W L. Persistent problems with standardization of immunoassays for anti-cardiolipin antibodies.  Thromb Haemost. 2001;  86 1123-1124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 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'Hemostase et la Thrombose).  Thromb Haemost. 1995;  73 444-452
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Coulam C B, McIntyre J A, Wagenknecht D, Rote N. Interlaboratory inconsistencies in detection of anticardiolipin antibodies.  Lancet. 1990;  335 865
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 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
  • 12 Exner T, Triplett D A, Taberner D A, Howard M A, Harris E N. Comparison of test methods for the lupus anticoagulant: International Survey on Lupus Anticoagulants-I (ISLA-1).  Thromb Haemost. 1990;  64 478-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brandt J T, Barna L K, Triplett D A. Laboratory identification of lupus anticoagulants: results of the Second International Workshop for Identification of Lupus Anticoagulants. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulants/Antiphospholipid Antibodies of the ISTH.  Thromb Haemost. 1995;  74 1597-1603
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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 Standardisation Committee of the ISTH.  Thromb Haemost. 1995;  74 1185-1190
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jennings I, Greaves M, Mackie I J et al.. 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
  • 16 Jennings I, Kitchen S, Woods T A, Preston F E, Greaves M. 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.  Thromb Haemost. 1997;  77 934-937
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Roussi J, Roisin J P, Goguel A. Lupus anticoagulants: first French interlaboratory Etalonorme survey.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;  105 788-793
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Arnout J. Antiphospholipid syndrome: diagnostic aspects of lupus anticoagulants.  Thromb Haemost. 2001;  86 83-91
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lawrie A S, Mackie I J, Purdy G, Machin S J. The sensitivity and specificity of commercial reagents for the detection of lupus anticoagulant show marked differences in performance between photo-optical and mechanical coagulometers.  Thromb Haemost. 1999;  81 758-762
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
  • 21 Wong R CW, Favaloro E J, Pollock W et al.. A multi-centre evaluation of the intra-assay and inter-assay variation of commercial and in-house anti-cardiolipin antibody assays.  Pathology. 2004;  36 182-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilson W A, Gharavi A E, Koike T et al.. International consensus statement on preliminary classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome: report of an international workshop.  Arthritis Rheum. 1999;  42 1309-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lockshin M D, Sammaritano L R, Schwartzman S. Validation of the Sapporo criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome.  Arthritis Rheum. 2000;  43 440-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wilson W A. Classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome.  Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2001;  27 499-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Moons K GM, Grobbee D E. When should we remain blind and when should our eyes remain open in diagnostic studies?.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;  55 633-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Swets J A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.  Science. 1998;  240 1285-1293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ransohoff D F, Feinstein A R. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.  N Engl J Med. 1978;  299 926-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Giles I P, Isenberg D A, Latchman D S, Rahman A. How do antiphospholipid antibodies bind beta2-glycoprotein I?.  Arthritis Rheum. 2003;  48 2111-2121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Harris E N, Gharavi A E, Patel S, Hughes G RV. Evaluation of the anticardiolipin antibody test: report of an International Workshop held April 4 1986.  Clin Exp Immunol. 1987;  68 215-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Harris E N. The second International Anticardiolipin Standardization Workshop/the Kingston Antiphospholipid Antibody study (KAPS) group.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1990;  94 476-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Harris E N, Pierangeli S S, Birch D. Anticardiolipin wet workshop: Vth International Symposium on antiphospholipid antibodies.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;  101 616-624
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Pierangeli S S, Stewart M, Silva L K, Harris E N. Report of an anticardiolipin wet workshop during the VIIth International Symposium on antiphospholipid antibodies.  J Rheumatol. 1998;  25 156-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ichikawa K, Khamashta M A, Koike T, Matsuura E, Hughes G RV. Beta 2-glycoprotein I reactivity of monoclonal anticardiolipin antibodies from patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome.  Arthritis Rheum. 1994;  37 1453-1461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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
  • 35 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
  • 36 Triplett D A. Antiphospholipid antibodies.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;  126 1424-1429
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wong R CW, Gillis D, Adelstein S et al.. Consensus Guidelines on Anti-Cardiolipin Antibody Testing and Reporting.  Pathology. 2004;  36 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Scientific and Standardisation Committee (SSC) of the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis for Lupus Anticoagulants/Phospholipid-Dependent-Antibodies (2003 meeting minutes) .Available at www.med.unc.edu/isth/; select “SSC Official Communications,” then “All 2003 Scientific Subcommittee Reports,” then “Lupus Anticoagulant/Phospholipid-dependent Antibodies Accessed January 5, 2005
  • 39 Favaloro E J, Bonar R, Sioufi J et al.. Multilaboratory testing of thrombophilia: current and past practice in Australasia as assessed through the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs for Hematology.  Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005;  31 49-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Favaloro E J. Learning from peer assessment: the role of the external quality assurance multilaboratory thrombophilia test process. Semin Thromb Hemost 2005 31: 85-89
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Cabral A R, Cabiedes J, Alarcon-Segovia D. Tween 20 detaches cardiolipin from ELISA plates and makes anticardiolipin antibodies undetectable regardless of the presence of beta 2-glycoprotein-I.  J Immunol Methods. 1994;  175 107-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Galli M, Luciani D, Bertolini G, Barbui T. Lupus anticoagulants are stronger risk factors for thrombosis than anticardiolipin antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review of the literature.  Blood. 2003;  101 1827-1832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Agopian M S, Boctor F N, Peter J B. False-positive test result for IgM anticardiolipin antibody due to IgM rheumatoid factor.  Arthritis Rheum. 1988;  31 1212-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

 Dr.
Richard C. W Wong

Division of Immunology, Queensland Health Pathology Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital

Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia

Email: richard_wong@health.qld.gov.au