Cited by 73Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management

Evaluation of the DOAC-Stop® Procedure to Overcome the Effect of DOACs on Several Thrombophilia Screening Tests

Open access
Favresse, Julien, Lardinois, Benjamin, Sabor, Lina, Devalet, Bérangère, Vandepapeliere, Julie, Braibant, Maximilien, Lessire, Sarah, Chatelain, Bernard +3 more·2018·TH Open

Abstract

Abstract The impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on laboratory assays used for thrombophilia testing (e.g., antithrombin, protein S, protein C, lupus anticoagulant and activated protein-C resistance) is a well-known issue and may cause false-positive and -negative results. Therefore, the correct interpretation of tests that are performed in patients taking DOACs is mandatory to prevent misclassification and the subsequent clinical consequences. We aimed at evaluating the efficiency of a new and simple procedure (DOAC-Stop®; Haematex Research, Hornsby, Australia) to overcome the effect of all DOACs in real-life settings and to assess the percentage of erroneous results due to the presence of DOACs on thrombophilia screening tests. For this purpose, 135 DOAC-treated patients (38 apixaban, 40 dabigatran, 15 edoxaban, and 42 rivaroxaban) and 20 control patients were enrolled. A significant drop in apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban plasma concentrations following the DOAC-Stop® treatment was observed (74.8–8.2 ng/mL [p < 0.0001], 95.9–4.7 ng/mL [p < 0.0001], 102.1–8.8 ng/mL [p = 0.001], and 111.3–7.0 ng/mL [p < 0.0001], respectively). The DOAC-Stop® treatment was mostly effective to overcome the effect of DOACs on PTT-LA, dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) screen, and dRVVT confirm tests. Using our procedures, false-positive results due to DOACs were observed only with lupus anticoagulant tests (up to 75%) and fell to zero after the DOAC-Stop® procedure, regardless of the DOAC considered. In conclusion, the DOAC-Stop® adsorbent procedure appeared to be an effective and simple way to overcome the interference of DOAC on coagulation tests and should facilitate the interpretation of thrombophilia screening tests in patients taking DOACs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1657785

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Pretreatment with adsorbents may alter clotting times, producing false-positive or false-negative LA results or incomplete removal of direct oral anticoagulants.

    “Several studies indicated that pretreatment with adsorbents may affect clotting times resulting in false-positive or false-negative LA results, or incomplete removal of DOACs.33,[41][42][43]”

    From Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2020) · cites this paper as [42]

    The DOAC-Stop® Treatment section (page unavailable) says the adsorbent minimally affected aPTT and PT in samples without DOACs. It does not show adsorbent-induced false-positive or false-negative LA results: the Results report that false-positive LA results fell to zero after treatment and residual DOAC levels were below assay quantification limits. The Discussion notes that LA-positive patients were not included, limiting what the study can say about false negatives. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Favresse, J., Lardinois, B., Sabor, L., Devalet, B., Vandepapeliere, J., Braibant, M., Lessire, S., Chatelain, B., Jacqmin, H., Douxfils, J., & Mullier, F.
Affiliations
  • Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (BE)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Université Catholique de Louvain, CHU UCL Namur, Hematology Laboratory, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, NARILIS, Yvoir, Belgium
  • University of Namur (BE)
Corresponding author
Mullier, François
Venue
TH Open
Published
2018-04
Volume
02
Issue
02
Pages
e202-e209
ISSN
2512-9465 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805959260
Cited by
73
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • TH Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the University of Namur (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
direct oral anticoagulants, thrombophilia screening, antithrombin III, protein S, protein C, lupus anticoagulant, activated protein C resistance, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, plasma adsorption, false positives, coagulation tests, dilute Russell's viper venom time

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