Comparison of six dilute Russell viper venom time lupus anticoagulant screen/confirm assay kits
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The normalized dilute Russell viper venom time (DRVVT) ratio provides a robust assay methodology for lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated six normalized DRVVT LA screen and confirm systems for inter-method consistency. Reagents were purchased from Diagnostica Stago, Inc. (Parsippany, NJ); Precision BioLogic Inc. (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada); Siemens Healthcare Inc. (Deerfield, IL); TCoag (Parsippany, NJ); Instrumentation Laboratories (Bedford, MA); and Sekisui Diagnostics (Pfungstadt, Germany). METHODS: For all assays, we employed the STA-R Evolution automated coagulometer, adhering to manufacturers' instructions. LA-positive and LA-negative plasma controls were purchased from Diagnostica Stago and pooled normal plasma (PNP) was purchased from Precision BioLogic. We computed the mean of the reference interval (MRI) and action limits for all kits using LA-negative aliquots from locally sourced normal subjects (n = 42). We then assayed locally sourced LA-positive plasmas (n = 43) and using analysis of variance compared uncorrected screen/confirm ratios and screen/confirm ratios that were normalized using MRI and mean PNP results. RESULTS: The grand mean action limit, MRI + 3 SD, derived from the local normal plasmas, was 1.2, confirming the manufacturers' recommended limits; however, limits must be locally computed. The all-sample p value was less than 0.001, indicating heterogeneity among ratios. When Sekisui ratios were excluded, the p value was 0.14, thus indicating that this method introduced the major difference among methods. Mean screen/confirm ratios computed from LA-positive specimens were 1.91 to 2.04 for reagent systems other than Sekisui, which instead yielded a mean ratio of 1.198, indicating that this method was relatively insensitive to LA. A negative bias was recorded by two lots from the Sekisui system for LA-positive specimens. Screen/confirm ratios from combined LA-positive and LA-negative samples generated a combined range of 1.59 to 1.67 for all reagents except Sekisui, which instead yielded 1.09. The within-run percent coefficient of variation (CV%) was less than 5.0% using all samples. Between-run CV% using Diagnostica Stago LA-positive and LA-negative controls was less than 5.5%. CONCLUSIONS: DRVVT screen/confirm ratios discriminate between LA-positive and LA-negative samples and generally provide acceptable reproducibility. Ratio results may vary among reagent-instrument combinations. In this study, normalization added little to the clinical result interpretation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Screen and mix ratios and ICA values were similar between the two dRVVT reagents.
“Screen and mix ratios and ICA values were similar between the two dRVVT reagents, possibly due, at least in part, to normalizing the data reducing between reagent differences.28, 29”
Although most commercial dRVVT reagents behave almost similar in LAC testing, differences have been observed.
“Although most of the commercial dRVVT reagents behave almost similar in LAC testing, it is important to note that differences have been observed (11, 12).”
From Mixing studies in lupus anticoagulant testing are required at least in some type of samples (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 33
- Authors
- Fritsma, G., & McGlasson, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- McGlasson, David
- Venue
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2013-03-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 315-319
- ISSN
- 0094-6176 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-9064
- OpenAlex
- W1988898544
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Surgeon General
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- lupus anticoagulant, dilute Russell viper venom time, assay kit comparison, reference values, action limits, assay sensitivity, coefficient of variation, anticoagulant screening, negative bias
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Female, Humans, Partial Thromboplastin Time, Prothrombin Time, Reference Values, Specimen Handling, Viper Venoms, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review