Introduction – Antithrombin (AT) deficiency, associated with an increased risk for venous thrombosis, is classified into type I (quantitative defect) and type II (qualitative defect). Qualitative defects may affect the reactive site (RS), the heparin binding site (HBS) of AT, or they may have a pleiotropic effect (PE). Screening tests, which measure the ability of AT, in the presence of heparin, to inhibits either thrombin (anti-IIa activity) or FXa (anti-Xa activity), are able to detect most AT deficiencies; however, few cases of discrepancies have been described (i.e. normal vs. pathological value) with the two different methods. Aim of the study was the evaluation of agreement between an anti-Xa assay and an anti-IIa assay for AT, and the evaluation of their ability in detecting AT defects. Materials and Methods – The study population consisted of the “routine and thrombophilic” group (493 patients for which AT test was required) and the “historical deficiencies” group (23 subjects with known AT deficiency and 18 relatives). Anti-Xa HemosIL Antithrombin kit (from Instrumentation Laboratory) and a home-made anti-IIa method were used to measure AT activities. A control group (n= 100) was used to determine AT reference ranges. SERPINC1 gene analysis was carried out for 21 patients (Universitair Ziekenhuis in Bruxelles). Results – The results provided by the two methods showed a high correlation (Spearman rho>0.70); however, 8 discrepant results were observed (3 in the “routine and thrombophilia” group and 5 in the “historical deficiencies” group). Gene analysis confirmed the presence of a molecular defect in 18/21 subjects, 5 of which had also descrepant AT results. In fact, normal anti-Xa AT values were obtained for Cambridge II defect (RS), whereas anti-IIa test provided normal values for a HBS defect. Both methods provided pathological AT values for 5 type I deficiencies but normal AT values for other 2 HBS defects. In the study population AT anti-Xa and AT anti-IIa sensitivity was 61.1% and 55.6%, respectively; when both tests were used, sensitivity increased to 72.2%. When the ratio between AT anti-IIa and AT anti-Xa was added, sensitivity increased to 88.9%. Conclusions – Currently avaible screening tests are not able to detect all molecular defects. However, when anti-Xa assay is carried out together with anti-IIa method, and the ratio between the results provided by both is considered, the diagnostic power is increased. Anyway, laboratory test results should be considered together with personal and familiar clinical history of the single subject under evaluation.
Introduzione - La carenza congenita di Antitrombina (AT), che espone a rischio trombotico di tipo prevalentemente venoso, viene classificata in tipo I (difetto quantitativo) o tipo II (difetto qualitativo). I difetti qualitativi possono interessare il sito reattivo (Reactive Site, RS) o il sito di legame dell’AT con l’eparina (Heparin Binding Site, HBS), oppure possono avere effetto pleiotropico (PE). I test di screening, che misurano la capacità dell’AT, presente nel plasma, di neutralizzare la trombina (attività anti-IIa) o il Fattore Xa (attività anti-Xa) in presenza di eparina, sono in grado di evidenziare la maggior parte dei difetti dell’AT; tuttavia, sono stati osservati risultati discrepanti (valore normale vs. valore patologico) con i due differenti metodi. Scopo della tesi è quello di valutare la concordanza tra un test AT anti-Xa e un test AT anti-IIa e di valutare la relativa capacità di individuare le carenze di AT. Materiali e Metodi – La popolazione in studio è costituita dal gruppo “routine e trombofilici” (493 soggetti con prescrizione del test AT) e dal gruppo “carenti noti” (23 soggetti con carenza nota di AT e 18 familiari). I dosaggi dell’attività dell’AT sono stati effettuati con i metodi AT anti-Xa (HemosIL, Instrumentation Laboratory) e AT anti-IIa (home-made). Una popolazione di controllo (n= 100) è stata utilizzata per definire i relativi intervalli di riferimento. In 21 soggetti con carenza di AT è stata effettuata la ricerca di mutazioni nel gene SERPINC1 (Universitair Ziekenhuis di Bruxelles). Risultati – I risultati di AT% ottenuti con i due metodi sono altamente correlati (rho di Spearman >0.70); tuttavia, sono stati riscontrati 8 dati discordanti (3 nel gruppo “routine e trombofilici”, 5 nel gruppo “carenti noti”). L’analisi genetica ha identificato la presenza di mutazioni nel gene SERPINC1 in 18/21 soggetti studiati, 5 dei quali con valori di attività AT discordanti. Infatti, valori normali di AT anti-Xa si sono ottenuti per il difetto Cambridge II (II RS), mentre il test AT anti-IIa ha fornito valori normali per un difetto HBS. Valori di AT patologici concordi sono stati ottenuti per 5 carenze di tipo I, mentre si sono ottenuti risultati di AT normali con entrambi i metodi per altre 2 carenze HBS. Nella popolazione indagata la sensibilità del test AT anti-Xa è 61.1%, quella del test AT anti-IIa è 55.6%. Se si considerano entrambi i test la sensibilità diventa 72.2%. Se si utilizza in aggiunta anche il rapporto tra l’attività AT anti-IIa e l’attività anti-Xa, la sensibilità aumenta a 88.9%. Conclusioni – I metodi funzionali attualmente a disposizione per il dosaggio dell’AT non sono in grado di individuare tutti i tipi di difetti molecolari dell’AT. L’utilizzo combinato di un test anti-Xa e di un test anti-IIa e del rapporto AT anti-IIa/AT anti-Xa potrebbe aumentare la capacità diagnostica dei dosaggi. I risultati dei test di laboratorio vanno comunque considerati alla luce della storia clinica personale e familiare del soggetto.
CARENZA CONGENITA DI ANTITROMBINA E DIAGNOSI DI LABORTORIO: QUALE TEST FUNZIONALE?
CORNO, ANNA ROSA
2014
Abstract
Introduction – Antithrombin (AT) deficiency, associated with an increased risk for venous thrombosis, is classified into type I (quantitative defect) and type II (qualitative defect). Qualitative defects may affect the reactive site (RS), the heparin binding site (HBS) of AT, or they may have a pleiotropic effect (PE). Screening tests, which measure the ability of AT, in the presence of heparin, to inhibits either thrombin (anti-IIa activity) or FXa (anti-Xa activity), are able to detect most AT deficiencies; however, few cases of discrepancies have been described (i.e. normal vs. pathological value) with the two different methods. Aim of the study was the evaluation of agreement between an anti-Xa assay and an anti-IIa assay for AT, and the evaluation of their ability in detecting AT defects. Materials and Methods – The study population consisted of the “routine and thrombophilic” group (493 patients for which AT test was required) and the “historical deficiencies” group (23 subjects with known AT deficiency and 18 relatives). Anti-Xa HemosIL Antithrombin kit (from Instrumentation Laboratory) and a home-made anti-IIa method were used to measure AT activities. A control group (n= 100) was used to determine AT reference ranges. SERPINC1 gene analysis was carried out for 21 patients (Universitair Ziekenhuis in Bruxelles). Results – The results provided by the two methods showed a high correlation (Spearman rho>0.70); however, 8 discrepant results were observed (3 in the “routine and thrombophilia” group and 5 in the “historical deficiencies” group). Gene analysis confirmed the presence of a molecular defect in 18/21 subjects, 5 of which had also descrepant AT results. In fact, normal anti-Xa AT values were obtained for Cambridge II defect (RS), whereas anti-IIa test provided normal values for a HBS defect. Both methods provided pathological AT values for 5 type I deficiencies but normal AT values for other 2 HBS defects. In the study population AT anti-Xa and AT anti-IIa sensitivity was 61.1% and 55.6%, respectively; when both tests were used, sensitivity increased to 72.2%. When the ratio between AT anti-IIa and AT anti-Xa was added, sensitivity increased to 88.9%. Conclusions – Currently avaible screening tests are not able to detect all molecular defects. However, when anti-Xa assay is carried out together with anti-IIa method, and the ratio between the results provided by both is considered, the diagnostic power is increased. Anyway, laboratory test results should be considered together with personal and familiar clinical history of the single subject under evaluation.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
phd_unimi_R09152.pdf
Open Access dal 01/03/2015
Dimensione
1.03 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.03 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/113019
URN:NBN:IT:UNIMI-113019