4.7 Article

Novel diagnostic assays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 121, Issue 18, Pages 3727-3732

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-01-479576

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. [HL112903]
  2. [HL099973]
  3. [HL110860]
  4. [HL109825]
  5. [AI101992]
  6. [HL078726]
  7. [HL078726-S1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laboratory testing for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) has important shortcomings. Immunoassays fail to discriminate platelet-activating from nonpathogenic antibodies. Specific functional assays are impracticable due to the need for platelets and radioisotope. We describe 2 assays that may overcome these limitations. The KKO-inhibition test (KKO-I) measures the effect of plasma on binding of the HIT-like monoclonal antibody KKO to platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin. DT40-luciferase (DT40-luc) is a functional test comprised of a B-cell line expressing Fc gamma RIIa coupled to a luciferase reporter. We compared these assays to polyspecific and immunoglobulin (Ig) G-specific PF4/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) in samples from 58 patients with suspected HIT and circulating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. HIT was defined as a 4Ts score >= 4 and positive C-14-serotonin release assay. HIT-positive plasma demonstrated greater mean inhibition of KKO binding than HIT-negative plasma (78.9% vs 26.0%; P < .0001) and induced greater luciferase activity (3.14-fold basal vs 0.96-fold basal; P < .0001). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was greater for KKO-I (0.93) than for the polyspecific (0.82; P = .020) and IgG-specific ELISA (0.76; P = .0044) and for DT40-luc (0.89) than for the IgG-specific ELISA (P = .046). KKO-I and DT40-luc showed better discrimination than 2 commercially available immunoassays, are simple to perform, and hold promise for improving the specificity and feasibility of HIT laboratory testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available