Concordance Between Platelet Expression Assay (PEA) and Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) in Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia: Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy and Laboratory Test Utilization

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Introduction The Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) serves as the gold standard functional assay for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) diagnosis at our institution. The present turnaround time (TAT) for SRA results ranges from 4-5 days, occasionally extending beyond 8 days, given outsourcing to a reference laboratory. Recently, an alternative functional assay, the Platelet Expression Assay (PEA), has been introduced. The PEA detects platelet activation through p-selectin expression by flow cytometry, with a reported sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95% for HIT. The PEA is also a send-out test, and thus has similar TAT and cost profiles as the SRA, but with potential to transition into an in-house assay in the future. Herein, we sought to determine the concordance of the PEA and SRA for the detection and diagnosis of HIT within our patient population. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on all cases in which a HIT ELISA (screening immunoassay) was performed by the Special Coagulation Laboratory during a one-year period. A 4Ts score was calculated if not already documented by chart review. In a subset analysis, specimens with a positive screening ELISA were concurrently tested by both SRA and PEA to compare performance. Results Of the 1341 cases, a 4Ts score was calculated and found to be less than 4 for 30-50% of cases. A total of 490 cases were sent out for SRA, of which 49 (10%) returned positive results. In a subset analysis of 20 samples from 14 patients, all with positive ELISAs, results revealed concordance between the SRA and PEA for all but one sample (19/20, 95%). Specifically, three successive samples from one patient had [negative, negative, positive] results for SRA, and [negative, positive, positive] results for PEA, respectively. This discordant result suggests a potential difference in sensitivity between the two assays. Further subset analysis focused on an additional 13 samples from 10 patients, all with SRA-positive results. Only 8 samples were concordant (8/13, 62%). One case showed a negative PEA and presumed false positive SRA, given the clinical history, while 4 samples showed likely true positive SRA results, given strength of ELISA results and 4Ts score, but were negative by PEA. Conclusions The lack of adherence to the 4Ts score algorithm to drive laboratory test utilization resulted in unnecessary ELISA and functional assay testing, potentially resulting in increased costs and false positive results. This result underscores the need for vigilance in assessing and refining diagnostic strategies. Additionally, our discordant findings in the subset analysis underscore the importance of evaluating the concordance and discordance between SRA and PEA results, providing insights into the diagnostic accuracy and potential limitations of each assay in identifying HIT.