Abstract:Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an autoimmune disorder caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin complexes. Rapid immunoassays (IAs) for detection of these antibodies mark a milestone in HIT diagnosis, despite a higher false-positive rate compared with functional platelet-activation assays. However, combining different rapid IAs may help to improve their diagnostic specificity. Here, we compared the individual performance of the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA; HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 68.4%) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 92.4%, specificity 85.8%) with their combined performance using two unique diagnostic algorithms in a single prospective cohort of suspected HIT patients. Using the simultaneous algorithm adapted from Warkentin et al, the combined LIA–CLIA had a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 64.3%. The sequential algorithm adapted from Rittener-Ruff et al was applied in two theoretical scenarios to reflect real-world circumstances in diagnostic laboratories where access to clinical information is limited: (1) assuming all patients had an intermediate 4Ts score and (2) assuming all patients had a high 4Ts score. This algorithm correctly predicted HIT in 94.5% (high 4Ts) and 96.0% (intermediate 4Ts) and excluded HIT in 82.6% (high 4Ts) and 80.1% (intermediate 4Ts) of patients in either scenario, respectively. Although both combined algorithms improved diagnostic performance of individual IAs, the simultaneous algorithm showed fewer false predictions (7.9%) than the sequential algorithm (intermediate 4Ts: 37.6% and high 4Ts: 41.5%) and proved more practical as it does not rely on physician evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for clinician and interlaboratory variability when evaluating diagnostic tests for HIT. A.B. and Y.Z. analyzed and interpreted the data, performed statistical analysis, and wrote the manuscript. M.C. performed statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. J.C.M collected patient samples, performed experiments, and provided technical assistance. T.E.W. and D.M.A. interpreted data and wrote the manuscript. I.N. designed the research, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Article published online: 11 May 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

Mixing studies for lupus anticoagulant: does it matter how we mix?

Variability among commercial batches of normal pooled plasma in lupus anticoagulant testing

New method to differentiate between lupus anticoagulants, progressive coagulation inhibitors and coagulation factor deficiencies in the mixing tests

Evaluation of Rosners index vs Brandt correction and Chang’s %, in the interpretation of mixing studies at varying dilutions

[Research of the Efficiency of Different Lupus Anticoagulant Assays].

Applying index of circulating anticoagulant to mixing tests with lupus anticoagulant screen and confirm reagents can distinguish with high specificity between lupus anticoagulants and direct factor Xa inhibitors

Interpreting coagulation mixing study results in the era of direct oral anticoagulants

To normalize or not?: Dilute Russell viper venom time testing

Performance of lupus anticoagulant assays based on diluted Russell viper venom time and silica clotting time

The lupus anticoagulant titer is associated with elevated antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin immunoglobulin‐M isotype antibody levels

A Comparison Study: Possible Bias in Troponin I Measurement Obtained with a Point of Care Testing and a Central Laboratory Analyzers Employing Different Biological Matrices and Anticoagulants

In vitro differential inhibition of the factor XI activity assay in the setting of a lupus anticoagulant

Evaluation of an integrated activated partial thromboplastin time (Cephen LS/Cephen) for the detection of lupus anticoagulant

Lack of Interchangeability Between 3 Different Methods for Quantification of Everolimus in Blood: ACMIA, LTIA, and UHPLC-MS/MS

Biological Variations of Lupus Anticoagulant, Antithrombin, Protein C, Protein S, and von Willebrand Factor Assays.

Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Discordance among assays for monitoring? Anticoagulation during extracorporeal life support

Is lupus anticoagulant testing with dilute Russell's viper venom clotting times reliable in the presence of inflammation?

European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation. A multicentre calibration study of WHO international reference preparations for thromboplastin, rabbit (RBT/90) and human (rTF/95)

Evaluating Diagnostic Algorithms for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia using Two Combined Automated Rapid Immunoassays

The International Normalized Ratio during concurrent warfarin and argatroban anticoagulation: differential contributions of each agent and effects of the choice of thromboplastin used.