A comparative analysis of different automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein Ib‐binding activity assays in well typed von Willebrand disease patients

Abstract

Background von Willebrand disease (VWD) is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by quantitative (type 1 and 3) or qualitative (type 2) von Willebrand factor (VWF) defect. VWD diagnosis and classification require numerous laboratory tests. VWF: glycoprotein Ib (GPIb)-binding activity assays are used to distinguish type 1 from type 2 VWD. Objectives Three different automated VWF:GPIb-binding activity assays were compared. Patients and methods BC-VWF:RCo (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), HemosIL® VWF:RCo (Instrumentation Laboratory) and INNOVANCE® VWF:Ac (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) were performed in a well typed VWD cohort (n = 142). Results Based on the three most used VWD parameters (FVIII:C, VWF:Ag and VWF:GPIb-binding activity) and using a cut-off of <0.70 for type 2 VWD revealed sensitivity and specificity of, respectively, 92% and 72.4% for VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag, 84% and 89.7% for VWF:GPIbR/VWF:Ag, and 92% and 85.1% for VWF:GPIbM/VWF:Ag, whereas a lowered cut-off of < 0.60 resulted in reduced sensitivity with increased specificity for all assays. Conclusion VWD classification based on FVIII:C, VWF:Ag and VWF:GPIb-binding activity revealed an overall problem with normal VWF:GPIb-binding activity/VWF:Ag within type 2, especially type 2A/IIE. Although all assays were practically identical, BC-VWF:RCo had higher %CV compared with both new assays but comparable lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) ~4 IU dL-1 . No clear improved distinction between type 1 and 2 VWD with new assays was seen. RCo and HemosIL® are ristocetin dependent, whereas INNOVANCE® does not rely upon ristocetin and is not influenced by VWF polymorphisms increasing VWF:GPIb-binding activity levels. INNOVANCE® seems to be the best choice as a first-line VWF:GPIb-binding activity assay, providing the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for type 2 VWD.