IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0352430.html

Comparison of two algorithms of APTT-based lupus anticoagulant assay, two Dilute Russell viper venom time reagents, and silica clotting time

Author

Listed:
  • Preechaya Wongkrajang
  • Titiwan Pientong
  • Ratchaneekorn Hanyongyuth
  • Panutsaya Tientadakul

Abstract

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are heterogeneous antiphospholipid antibodies that interfere with phospholipid-dependent coagulation assays, resulting in considerable variability among detection methods. Although international guidelines recommend a stepwise approach incorporating screening, mixing, and confirmatory testing, integrated strategies omitting routine mixing studies are widely used. Different percentile-based cutoffs have been proposed for defining LA positivity.We retrospectively analyzed 135 citrated plasma samples requested for LA testing. Five LA detection approaches were evaluated: 4 integrated assays and 1 activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)–based approach following the ISTH-recommended stepwise algorithm with a mixing study. The integrated assays comprised silica clotting time, dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) using 2 different reagent systems, and an APTT-based assay. Precision studies and reference intervals were established, and LA positivity rates were compared using 97.5th and 99th percentile cutoffs. Inter-assay agreement and associations with anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti–β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antiphospholipid antibodies were assessed. LA positivity rates varied across procedures (19.3%–35.6%) at the 97.5th percentile. Application of the 99th percentile decreased positivity for dRVVT-HemosIL and APTT-based assays. Positivity increased at the 97.5th percentile in patients tested according to ISTH indications, with minimal impact in noncompliant cases. Inter-assay agreement ranged from fair to substantial and was influenced by assay type and cutoff definition. APTT-based assays showed the strongest associations with aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies. LA detection is strongly influenced by assay selection and cutoff strategy. Positivity rate–based evaluation provides a practical framework for comparing LA assays in laboratory practice, particularly in the absence of a reference standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Preechaya Wongkrajang & Titiwan Pientong & Ratchaneekorn Hanyongyuth & Panutsaya Tientadakul, 2026. "Comparison of two algorithms of APTT-based lupus anticoagulant assay, two Dilute Russell viper venom time reagents, and silica clotting time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0352430
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0352430
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0352430&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0352430?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0352430. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.