Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing

High-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) experience increased risk of thrombosis when treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy compared with warfarin. It is essential to establish the APS diagnosis to choose therapy and determine treatment duration. It requires testing fo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pernille Just Vinholt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-05-01
Series:RMD Open
Online Access:https://rmdopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e001156.full
id doaj-4cc944c0a3304a7da4ec09d2d6438b70
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4cc944c0a3304a7da4ec09d2d6438b702020-12-14T14:47:53ZengBMJ Publishing GroupRMD Open2056-59332020-05-016110.1136/rmdopen-2019-001156Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testingPernille Just Vinholt0Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, DenmarkHigh-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) experience increased risk of thrombosis when treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy compared with warfarin. It is essential to establish the APS diagnosis to choose therapy and determine treatment duration. It requires testing for antiphospholipid antibodies, including lupus anticoagulant (LAC). In this viewpoint, we discuss the options for timing of LAC testing, which includes testing before starting anticoagulant treatment (DOAC or warfarin), after switching to heparin or after withdrawal of anticoagulant treatment. DOACs interfere with LAC testing and recommendations emerge stating not to conduct on-therapy LAC testing. All approaches are to some extent currently practised, but have limitations and the area is therefore seemingly a catch 22. We put forward that the anticoagulant effect of DOAC can be eliminated in the laboratory and therefore patients can be tested on-therapy. While it may not eliminate all cases of interference, it could aid the interpretation in these situations and this approach is attractive from the patient and clinician’s perspective. Nevertheless, to prevent misdiagnosis the diagnostic workup for APS requires collaboration between the clinician and the laboratory. We advocate for standardisation in laboratory and clinical practice when diagnosing APS.https://rmdopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e001156.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pernille Just Vinholt
spellingShingle Pernille Just Vinholt
Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
RMD Open
author_facet Pernille Just Vinholt
author_sort Pernille Just Vinholt
title Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
title_short Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
title_full Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
title_fullStr Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
title_full_unstemmed Escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
title_sort escaping the catch 22 of lupus anticoagulant testing
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series RMD Open
issn 2056-5933
publishDate 2020-05-01
description High-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) experience increased risk of thrombosis when treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy compared with warfarin. It is essential to establish the APS diagnosis to choose therapy and determine treatment duration. It requires testing for antiphospholipid antibodies, including lupus anticoagulant (LAC). In this viewpoint, we discuss the options for timing of LAC testing, which includes testing before starting anticoagulant treatment (DOAC or warfarin), after switching to heparin or after withdrawal of anticoagulant treatment. DOACs interfere with LAC testing and recommendations emerge stating not to conduct on-therapy LAC testing. All approaches are to some extent currently practised, but have limitations and the area is therefore seemingly a catch 22. We put forward that the anticoagulant effect of DOAC can be eliminated in the laboratory and therefore patients can be tested on-therapy. While it may not eliminate all cases of interference, it could aid the interpretation in these situations and this approach is attractive from the patient and clinician’s perspective. Nevertheless, to prevent misdiagnosis the diagnostic workup for APS requires collaboration between the clinician and the laboratory. We advocate for standardisation in laboratory and clinical practice when diagnosing APS.
url https://rmdopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e001156.full
work_keys_str_mv AT pernillejustvinholt escapingthecatch22oflupusanticoagulanttesting
_version_ 1724383455930744832