Laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II after clearance of platelet factor 4/heparin complex

Laboratory confirmation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is limited by assay sensitivity. We investigated whether laboratory confirmation can be improved after antigen clearance by determining free antibody and combining the results of antigenic and biologic assays. Blood samples were collected over 5 to 6 weeks in 14 HIT patients. As an antigenic assay, the fluorescence-linked immunofiltration assay (FLIFA) was performed, and as a biologic assay, the carbon 14-labeled serotonin release assay was performed. At day 1 when heparin was stopped, 11 of 14 patients showed positive results in both assays; thus each assay had a sensitivity of 80%. The 3 patients with negative results seroconverted in one or both assays during the subsequent 7 days. Combining the positive results of the assays increased the sensitivity to 100% at day 7, regardless of whether the antigenic or the biologic assay was performed first. Both assays became negative in all patients within 5 to 6 weeks. The sensitivity of antigen and biologic assays in HIT patients increased to 100% after the time course of the heparin-induced antibody. We assume that in some HIT patients the free antibody can be detected after withdrawal of heparin and after clearance of the platelet-factor 4/heparin complex.     

Laboratory diagnosis of heparin-associated thrombocytopenia and comparison of platelet aggregation test, heparin-induced platelet activation test, and platelet factor 4/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

BACKGROUND : As clinical diagnosis of heparin-associated thrombocytopenia (HAT) is often difficult, confirmation by sensitive laboratory assays is desirable. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS : The sensitivity of the heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) test and the platelet aggregation test (PAT) was prospectively compared by using the sera of 209 patients with the putative diagnosis of HAT. Both assays were performed concomitantly with platelets of the same four donors using a different combination of donors from day to day. Further, all sera were assessed with a platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS : Positive results were obtained with 33 percent of sera in the PF4/heparin ELISA, with 33.5 percent of sera in the HIPA test, and with 11.5 percent of sera in the PAT. The PF4/heparin ELISA and the HIPA test showed no difference in sensitivity (p = 0.27 by McNemar's test) and were more sensitive than PAT (p < 10(-8) by McNemar's test). However, they recognized different patient cohorts. Nine HIPA-indeterminate and 12 HIPA-negative sera were positive in the PF4/heparin ELISA. Eight of the nine indeterminate sera caused platelet activation with high heparin concentrations in the HIPA test. Eleven of the 12 negative sera contained no IgG, but 9 contained IgM and 2 contained IgA HAT antibodies. Four sera that were indeterminate in the PF4/heparin ELISA and 18 sera that were negative were positive in the HIPA test. None of the sera that were positive in the PAT was missed in the HIPA test, but two of those were negative in the PF4/heparin ELISA. All sera were assessed with four low-molecular-weight heparins and a low-molecular- weight heparinoid in the HIPA test with platelets from the same four donors. Low-molecular-weight heparin caused platelet activation with positive sera in 98 percent of tests, and the heparinoid did so in 10 percent; in a further 12.8 percent, crossreactivity to the low- molecular-weight heparinoid could not be excluded. CONCLUSION : The majority of HAT antibodies react with a PF4/heparin complex, but there is strong evidence that other antigens are involved in some patients. The HIPA test and the PF4/heparin ELISA are sensitive for diagnosing HAT, and they complement one another.     

IgG classification of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies to identify patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during mechanical circulatory support

Commercial immunoassays frequently detect anti-PF4/heparin antibodies during mechanical circulatory support (MCS), but only a small minority of patients develops heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Whereas platelet functional tests can distinguish between platelet-activating and non-platelet-activating antibodies, commercial PF4-dependent immunoassays do not. Between 2003 and 2004, 113 patients were placed on MCS. Blood samples were obtained on postimplant day 5-7 for analyses by antibody assays and the functional heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) assay. Three distinct groups of patient sera were identified: platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies (n = 10), non-platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies (n = 53), and anti-PF4/heparin antibody negative (n = 50). Patients with platelet-activating antibodies had the highest risk for thromboembolic events (P < 0.005), whereas those with non-platelet-activating antibodies did not differ from antibody negative patients (P = 0.369). The enzyme-immunoassay and column agglutination assays, which cover all immunoglobulin classes, demonstrated adequate sensitivity and negative predictive value; yet, both lacked specificity with respect to the platelet-activating antibodies. If all antibody positive patients were further classified by an IgG-specific anti-PF4/heparin enzyme-immuno assay, specificity for platelet-activating antibodies increased. Whereas IgG-specific optical density (OD) values below 1.0 were likely for non-platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, higher values were progressively predictive for pathogenic platelet activation. The probability of the development of clinical HIT also increased steeply. In conclusion, platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies are relatively common (about 9%) in patients on MCS and are associated with significantly higher thrombotic event rates. Low IgG-specific OD values (< 1.0) in the enzyme-immunoassay indicate low likelihood for the presence of platelet-activating antibodies. These results justify further validation so that anticoagulation during MCS becomes safer and adequate.     

Prospective evaluation of PF4/heparin immunoassays for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Summary.  Background:  Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse complication of heparin caused by HIT antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4-heparin (PF4/hep) complexes leading to platelet activation. Several methods are available for the identification of HIT antibodies. Objectives:  To evaluate the clinical usefulness of different antigen-binding assays for detection of antibodies against PF4/hep complexes in a prospective study. Patients/methods:  A prospective cohort of 500 surgical and medical patients suspected of having HIT was evaluated. The laboratory assessment included particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA), polyspecific ELISA recognizing IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies (Poly-ELISA), IgG-specific ELISA (IgG-ELISA) and the HIPA test. The pretest probability of HIT was determined using the 4T's model. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of each immunoassay were determined depending upon the heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) results and the clinical scoring. The operating characteristics of each immunoassay were determined using the receiver-operation characteristic (ROC) curve. Results:  Platelet-activating antibodies were identified in 35/500 patients, all of whom had intermediate to high clinical probability. PF4/hep antibodies were detected in 124, 86 and 90 sera using Poly-ELISA (PPV = 28), IgG-ELISA (PPV = 40.6) and PaGIA (PPV = 36.6). NPV was 100% for Poly- and IgG-ELISA, but only 99.5% for PaGIA. ROC analysis revealed that PaGIA is less informative than ELISA. The IgG-ELISA provides better diagnostic information than the other assays. In addition, there is a clear correlation between optical density (OD) value and the probability of having HIT. Conclusions:  Our observation indicates that an IgG-ELISA provides the best diagnostic information of all antigen-binding assays.     

Prospective evaluation of the ''4Ts'' score and particle gel immunoassay specific to heparin/PF4 for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe disease that is often difficult to diagnose. A clinical scoring system, the '4Ts' score, has been proposed to estimate its probability before laboratory testing, and a particle gel immunoassay (H/PF4 PaGIA) has also been developed for rapid detection of HIT antibodies. AIM: To evaluate the performance of both methods when HIT is suspected clinically. METHODS: Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients were included in four centers. The probability of HIT was evaluated using the 4Ts score blind to antibody test results. HIT was confirmed only when the serotonin release assay (SRA) was positive. RESULTS: The risk of HIT was evaluated by the 4Ts score as low (LowR), intermediate (IR) or high (HR) in 34.7%, 60.6% and 4.7% of patients, respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) of the 4Ts score was 100%, as the SRA was negative in all LowR patients. PaGIA was negative in 176 patients without HIT (99.4%, NPV) and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.05. PaGIA was positive in 37 patients, including 21 with HIT (positive predictive value = 56.8%), with a positive LR of 11.4. A negative PaGIA result decreased the probability of HIT in IR patients from 10.9% before assay to 0.6%, whereas a positive result did not substantially increase the likelihood for HIT. CONCLUSION: The use of the 4Ts score with PaGIA appears to be a reliable strategy to rule out HIT.     

Rates of clinically apparent heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for unfractionated heparin vs. low molecular weight heparin in non-surgical patients are low and similar

With the growing use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), it is important to provide an evidence-based comparison with unfractionated heparin (UFH) concerning rates of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Such comparisons are essential in clinical decision-making and cost-modeling. In this paper we review data regarding non-surgical (medical) patients. We conclude that the lack of uniform evaluation and standardized testing for HIT in the current literature precludes making a reliable estimate of the relative risk of HIT in UFH vs. LMWH in either the treatment or prevention of VTE in non-surgical patients. However, current data suggest that the risk of thrombocytopenia and HIT is low and similar for non-surgical patients who receive either LMWH or UFH.     

Heparin is not required for detection of antibodies associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/thrombosis.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with or without thrombosis, is a common and often serious complication of heparin therapy. Platelet-activating, heparin-induced antibodies characteristic of HIT are thought to be specific for complexes formed between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin, and such complexes are routinely used for antibody detection. We studied the binding of HIT antibodies to PF4 complexed with heparin fractions of uniform molecular size or linear polyanions other than heparin and found that many compounds other than heparin form complexes with PF4 that are suitable for antibody detection, provided they carry strong negative charges spaced about 0.5 nm apart along the molecular backbone and are of sufficient length to span about 40% of the circumference of the PF4 tetramer. Polyvinyl phosphonate was among the compounds that were equivalent to heparin. Thus neither a polysaccharide chain nor sulfate side groups--the hallmarks of heparin structure--are required for HIT antibody detection. The findings support the view that antibodies associated with HIT are specific for conformational changes that take place in the positively charged PF4 molecule when it reacts with a suitable, linear polyanion.     

Recombinant factor VIIa in patients with platelet function disorders or thrombocytopenia

Apart from on-label indications, recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is increasingly administered for treatment of life threatening bleeding events when appropriate standard therapy fails. Case reports and short treatment series document the efficacy and safety of rFVIIa to achieve haemostasis in patients with platelet function disorders and thrombocytopenias of various origin. An established on-label indication for the use of rFVIIa is given in patients with Glanzmann thrombasthenia with refractoriness to transfusions of platelet concentrates. Bolus applications of rFVIIa at dosages between 80 and 120 microg/kg body weight every 1.5 to 3 h are also administered successfully in patients with Bernard-Soulier syndrome, platelet storage pool defects, and other acquired platelet function disorders. In patients with Glanzmann thrombasthenia, at least three bolus injections are required to achieve effective haemostasis. In approximately half of the patients with thrombocytopenias, a single bolus of rFVIIa has been shown to be sufficient in managing otherwise untreatable bleeding complications. In these patients, haemostasis was achieved even at platelet counts <20,000/microl, although the efficacy of rFVIIa increases at higher platelet concentrations.     

Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia: towards standardization of platelet factor 4/heparin antigen tests

Summary. Background: Laboratory confirmation of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is based on detection of heparin‐dependent platelet‐activating antibodies. Platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin enzyme‐immunoassays (EIA) are a widely available surrogate for platelet‐activating antibodies. Objective: Defining the optical density (OD) reactivity profiles of a PF4/heparin EIA in reference subject and patient populations and the correlation of the EIA results (expressed in OD units) with the prevalence of platelet‐activating antibodies. Patients/methods: Using quantile regression we determined the 97.5th percentile of PF4/heparin‐immunoglobulin G (IgG) EIA reactivities in non‐heparin‐treated individuals [blood donors (n = 935)] and patients before heparin therapy (n = 1207). In patients with suspected HIT, we compared the correlation of EIA‐IgG reactivities (Greifswald laboratory; n = 2821) and the heparin‐induced platelet activation assay (HIPA) with the correlation of reactivities of another EIA‐IgG (McMaster laboratory; n = 1956) with the serotonin‐release assay (SRA). Results: PF4/heparin‐IgG EIA OD reactivities had a lower OD 97.5th percentile in blood donors compared with patient groups before heparin treatment (P < 0.001). The percentage of sera testing positive in the functional assays strongly correlated with PF4/heparin‐IgG EIA OD reactivities in both laboratories with very similar results (correlation coefficient > 0.9) when normalized OD ranges (maximum OD divided by 10) were used instead of absolute OD values. Conclusions: Results of PF4/heparin‐IgG EIA should not be reported as only positive or negative as there is no single acceptable cut‐off value. Instead, reporting PF4/heparin‐IgG EIA OD results in ranges allows for risk‐stratified prediction for presence of platelet‐activating antibodies. Use of normalized OD ranges permits a standardized approach for inter‐laboratory comparisons.     

Low-density lipoprotein apheresis reduces platelet factor 4 on the surface of platelets: a possible protective mechanism against heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis

BACKGROUND: Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (HITT) is characterized by thrombocytopenia due to the formation of antibodies against heparin : platelet factor 4 (PF4) complexes. Despite the exposure to heparin during treatment and predisposition of patients with atherosclerosis to HITT, HITT in patients undergoing low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is rare. We investigated the possibility that LDL apheresis decreases PF4 on platelet (PLT) surfaces and/or plasma HITT antibody levels, either of which would disfavor HITT. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled 25 patients undergoing LDL apheresis at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Blood samples were drawn before and after treatment. Plasma samples were drawn proximal and distal to the LA‐15 treatment column. PF4, HITT antibodies, heparin levels, and P‐selectin were measured. RESULTS: No patient had clinical symptoms of HITT. The LA‐15 column was found to efficiently remove PF4. PF4 levels in peripheral blood plasma did not change significantly after LDL apheresis. However, PLT surface PF4 significantly decreased after treatment. HITT antibodies were found in only two patients and were nonfunctional. PLT surface P‐selectin did not change during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that LDL apheresis via dextran sulfate absorption removes plasma PF4 and reduces the amount of PF4 on the surface of circulating PLTs. Reduced surface PF4 may decrease antibody formation and/or recognition by HITT antibodies. These data provide a potential explanation for the near lack of HITT in hypercholesterolemic patients undergoing LDL apheresis. They also suggest the possibility that LDL apheresis using dextran sulfate adsorption may have therapeutic value in the treatment of HITT.     

Risk of anaphylaxis after reexposure to intravenous lepirudin in patients with current or past heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess the signs and symptoms indicative of adverse reactions to repeated exposures to lepirudin in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia who received at least 2 courses of lepirudin therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records were retrospectively assessed from adult patients who received at least 2 courses of lepirudin therapy separated by at least 1 week between January 1999 and June 2002 at The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. We evaluated the list of 289 low-level terms for possible signs and symptoms of anaphylactic reactions In the medical dictionary for regulatory activities as well as patient vital signs to detect manifestations of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Vital signs from the day before initiation of lepirudin therapy were compared with those from days 1 and 2 after exposure. RESULTS: No cases of anaphylaxis or allergic reaction related to lepirudin administration were identified among 43 adult patients. On day 1 of lepirudin, 10 patients had lower systolic blood pressures (by > or =20 mm Hg) than pre-lepirudin values, and 4 patients had systolic blood pressures of less than 100 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated asymptomatic decreases in blood pressure after patient reexposure to lepirudin most likely do not reflect anaphylaxis due to lepirudin. We believe that isolated and uncommon cases of anaphylaxis temporally related to lepirudin exposure should not preclude its use in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and past lepirudin exposure.     

A randomized, open-label pilot study comparing desirudin and argatroban in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with or without thrombosis: PREVENT-HIT Study

Because of an extreme risk for thromboemboli, patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) require immediate initiation of an alternative anticoagulant. The only therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration require intravenous infusion of expensive direct thrombin inhibitors. This prospective, randomized, open-label, exploratory study compared the clinical and economic utility of subcutaneous desirudin vs argatroban, the most frequently used agent for suspected or immunologically confirmed HIT, with or without thrombosis. Sixteen patients were randomized to treatment with fixed-dose desirudin (15 or 30 mg) every 12 hours or activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted argatroban by intravenous infusion. Arm A included 8 patients naive to direct thrombin inhibitor therapy, whereas Arm B included 8 patients on argatroban for at least 24 hours before randomization. The primary efficacy measure was the composite of new or worsening thrombosis (objectively documented), amputation, or death. Other end points included major and minor bleeding while on drug therapy, time to platelet count recovery, and pharmacoeconomics. No amputations or deaths occurred. One patient randomized to argatroban had worsening of an existing thrombosis. Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients on argatroban and in none during desirudin treatment. There was 1 minor bleed in each treatment group. The average medication cost per course of treatment was $1688 for desirudin and $8250 for argatroban. Desirudin warrants further study as a potentially cost-effective alternative to argatroban in patients with suspected HIT.     

Frequency of heparin/platelet factor 4-dependent platelet antibodies in patients undergoing angioplasty and stenting for cardiovascular disease and their role for on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity

Background  

The frequency of heparin-induced platelet antibodies (H/PF4 antibodies) following heparin exposure during percutaneous intervention with stent implantation is unknown. These antibodies may activate platelets and therefore contribute to high on-clopidogrel residual platelet reactivity (HRPR).