Dataset Information

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of haemophilia A/B patients comprises factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) concentrate replacement therapy, respectively. FVIII and FIX activity levels can be measured in clinical laboratories using one-stage activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based clotting or two-stage chromogenic factor activity assays. We discuss strengths and limitations of these assays, providing examples of clinical scenarios to highlight some of the challenges associated with their current use for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Substantial inter-laboratory variability has been reported for one-stage assays when measuring the activity of factor replacement products due to the wide range of currently available aPTT reagents, calibration standards, factor-deficient plasmas, assay conditions and instruments. Chromogenic activity assays may avoid some limitations associated with one-stage assays, but their regulatory status, perceived higher cost, and lack of laboratory expertise may influence their use. Haemophilia management guidelines recommend the differential application of one or both assays for initial diagnosis and disease severity characterisation, post-infusion monitoring and replacement factor potency labelling. Efficient communication between clinical and laboratory staff is crucial to ensure application of the most appropriate assay to each clinical situation, correct interpretation of assay results and, ultimately, accurate diagnosis and optimal and safe treatment of haemophilia A or B patients.

SUBMITTER: Marlar RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6916414 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

Marlar Richard A RA Strandberg Karin K Shima Midori M Adcock Dorothy M DM

European journal of haematology 20191113 1

Treatment of haemophilia A/B patients comprises factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX) concentrate replacement therapy, respectively. FVIII and FIX activity levels can be measured in clinical laboratories using one-stage activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based clotting or two-stage chromogenic factor activity assays. We discuss strengths and limitations of these assays, providing examples of clinical scenarios to highlight some of the challenges associated with their current use for d ...[more]

PMID: 31606899

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDiagnosis, treatment monitoring and assessment of desmopressin effect in haemophilia A patients are performed by measurement of factor VIII activity (FVIII). The two assays commonly applied are the one-stage assay and the chromogenic assay. Especially in non-severe haemophilia A, discrepancies between these assays are common. It is still unestablished which assay corresponds best with bleeding phenotype and desmopressin effect.AimTo correlate FVIII levels measured by the one-stage assay and by the chromogenic assay with bleeding phenotype and, additionally, to compare FVIII assay discrepancies before and after desmopressin administration.MethodFactor VIII was measured in 130 non-severe haemophilia A patients during routine visits to the outpatient clinic and/or during desmopressin testing. FVIII was measured by both the one-stage assay and the chromogenic assay. Discrepancies between assays were defined as at least a twofold difference of FVIII or an absolute FVIII difference between measurements of ≥0.10 IU/mL. Bleeding phenotype was defined as annual number of treated bleedings (adjusted ABR).ResultsHundred and thirty non-severe haemophilia A patients were included. In 31/130 patients, assay results were discrepant. However, FVIII measurements with both assays correlated adequately with adjusted ABR. In addition, in 27/130 patients FVIII measurements at baseline and after desmopressin administration were analysed. In 13/27 patients, all measurements were either equivalent or discrepant when results were compared. In 14/27 patients, this was not the case as both equivalent measurements and discrepant measurements at different time points within one patient were observed.ConclusionNeither the one-stage assay nor the chromogenic assay is superior in predicting bleeding phenotype. In addition, equivalent or discrepant FVIII results measured before desmopressin do not always predict FVIII assay results after desmopressin administration.

Project description:BackgroundDecision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported.MethodsWe conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review.Results87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility.ConclusionsThis scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

Dataset Information

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

Publications

Clinical utility and impact of the use of the chromogenic vs one-stage factor activity assays in haemophilia A and B.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets