The standard of care for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Prothrombin time, and its corresponding international normalized ratio (INR), is the laboratory test routinely performed to assess anticoagulation. Self-management of VKA therapy using point-of-care (POC) devices seems to be an attractive option.
Purpose/objective
To evaluate the accuracy of a POC device (CoaguChek XS) in APS patients by comparing it with venous laboratory INR. Furthermore, we analyzed whether other clinical and laboratory features could interfere with the CoaguChek XS results.
Patients and methods
This is a single-center cross-sectional study with 94 APS patients from a tertiary rheumatology clinic performed from August 2014 to March 2015. The comparison between CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR results was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r) followed by the Bland–Altman test. A paired t-test was also applied. A difference of up to ±0.5 INR unit between the two systems was considered clinically acceptable.
Results
The mean CoaguChek-INR was 2.94 ± 1.41 and venous laboratory INR was 2.43±0.86, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.95. Categorizing INR values in ranges (INR <2, INR 2–3, INR 3–4, and INR >4), we found that the INR >4 group presented a lower correlation (r = 0.64) compared to the other ranges (p < 0.05). Although both methods were highly correlated, CoaguChek XS showed higher values than the venous laboratory INR, with an increased average of 0.42 ± 0.54. Therefore, we proposed a simple linear regression model to predict the venous laboratory INR values, using results obtained from CoaguChek XS. A difference ≤0.5 INR unit between the two systems was observed in 57.4% of patients, and the aPL profile did not influence the results.
Conclusion
Although CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR demonstrated a good linear correlation in the group of INR ≤4, extra caution should be taken in APS patients, since a reasonable proportion of patients can present differences in INR results that are not acceptable. We do not recommend routine POC in APS patients.
MiyakisSLockshinMDAtsumiT, et al.International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost2006; 4: 295–306.
2.
DevreeseKMJOrtelTLPengoV, et al.Laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost2018; 16: 809–813.
3.
GalliMLucianiDBertoliniG, et al.Lupus anticoagulants are stronger risk factors for thrombosis than anticardiolipin antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. Blood2003; 101: 1827–1832.
4.
KelchtermansHPelkmansLde LaatB, et al.IgG/IgM antiphospholipid antibodies present in the classification criteria for the antiphospholipid syndrome: a critical review of their association with thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost2016; 14: 1530–1548.
5.
RosaRFUgolini-LopesMRZeinad-ValimAK, et al.Difficult clinical situations in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep2015; 17: 29–33.
6.
ErkanDAguiarCLAndradeD, et al.14th international congress on antiphospholipid antibodies task force report on antiphospholipid syndrome treatment. Autoimmun Rev2014; 6: 685–696.
7.
ZuilySCohenHIsenbergD, et al.Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the scientific and standardization committee of the international society on thrombosis and haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost2020: 18: 2126–2137.
8.
BalbiGGMPachecoMSMoticieloOA, et al.Antiphospholipid syndrome Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology position statement on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Adv Rheumatol2020; 60: 29.
9.
PengoVDenasGZoppellaroG, et al.Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood2018; 132: 1365–1371.
10.
DufrostVRisseJReshetnyakT, et al.Increased risk of thrombosis in antiphospholipid syndrome patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants. Results from an international patient-level data meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev2018; 17: 1011–1021.
11.
CohenHEfthymiouMDevreeseKMJ. Monitoring of anticoagulation in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. J Thromb Haemost2021; 19: 892–908.
12.
GarciaDErkanD. Diagnosis and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome. N Engl J Med2018; 378: 2010–2021.
13.
JonssonMHillarpASvenssonP;Comparison between CoaguChek S- and Owren-type prothrombin time assay for monitoring anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Res2004; 114: 83–89.
14.
PalaretiGLealiNCoccheriS, et al.Bleeding complications of oral anticoagulant treatment: an inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. Lancet1996; 348: 423–428.
LimWCrowtherMAEikelboomJW, et al.Management of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA2006; 295: 1050–1057.
17.
CrowtherMAGinsbergJSJulianJ. et al.A comparison of two intensities of warfarin for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. N Engl J Med2003; 349:1133–1138.
18.
FinazziGMarchioliRBrancaccioV, et al.A randomized clinical trial of high-intensity warfarin vs conventional antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome (WAPS). J Thromb Haemost2005; 3: 848–853.
19.
TorreiroEGFernándezEGRodríguezRM, et al.Comparative study of accuracy and clinical agreement of the CoaguChek xs portable device versus standard laboratory practice in unexperienced patients. J Thromb Haemost2009; 101: 969–974.
20.
JespersenJPollerLvan den BesselaarAM, et al.External quality assessment (EQA) for Coagucheck monitors. Thromb Haemost2010; 103: 936–941.
21.
BarcellonaDFenuLVanniniML, et al.Antiphospholipid Syndrome Patients: The Performance of Coagucheck XS in the Monitoring of Vitamin K-Antagonists. Thromb Res2012; 129: 168–170.
22.
FitzmauriceDAGardinerCKitchenS, et al.British society of haematology taskforce for haemostasis and thrombosis. British Society of haematology taskforce for haemostasis and thrombosis. An evidence-based review and guidelines for patients self-testing and management of oral anticoagulation. Br J Haematol2005; 131: 156–165.
23.
PleschWWolfTBreitenbeckN, et al.Results of the performance verification of the CoaguChek XS system. Thromb Res2008; 123: 381–389.
24.
TripodiADe LaatBWahlD, et al.Monitoring patients with the lupus anticoagulant while treated with vitamin k antagonists:communicstion from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost2016; 14: 2304–2307.
25.
KirkwoodTB. Calibration of reference thromboplastins and standardization of the prothrombin time ratio. J Thromb Haemost1983; 49: 238–244.
26.
HochbergMC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum1997; 40: 1725.
27.
MackieICooperPLawrieA, et al.Guidelines on the laboratory aspects of assays used in haemostasis and thrombosis. Int J Lab Hematol2013; 35: 1–13.
28.
SacksDBArnoldMBakrisGL, et al.Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care2011; 34: 61–99.
29.
ArtissJDZakB. Measurement of cholesterol concentration. In: RifaiNWarnickGRDominiczakMH (eds) Handbook of lipoprotein testing. Washington: AACC Press, 1997, pp. 99–114
30.
ColeTGKlotzschSGMcNamaraJ. Measurement of triglyceride concentration. In: RifaiNWarnickGRDominiczakMH (eds) Handbook of lipoprotein testing. Washington: AACC Press, 1997, pp. 115–126.
31.
FrancescantonioPLCCruvinelWMDellavanceA, et al.IV Brazilian guidelines for autoantibodies on HEp-2 cells (ANA). Rev Bras Reumatol2014; 54: 44–50.
32.
Guidelines for thromboplastins and plasma used to control oral anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Sixty-second report. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013(WHO Technical Report Series, No. 979), Annex 6.
33.
PengoVTripodiAReberG, et al.Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody on the Scientific and Standardisation Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost2009; 7: 1737–1740.
34.
DevreeseKMJGrootPGLaatB, et al.Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation. Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 2020. J Thromb Haemost2020; 18: 2828–2839.
35.
PengoVRuffattiADel RossT, et al.Confirmation of initial antiphospholipid antibody positivity depends on the antiphospholipid antibody profile. J Thromb Haemost2013; 11: 1527–1531.
36.
LevyRASignorelliF. Patient–health care provider relationship: how can it impact on APS (Hughes’ syndrome) adherence to treatment?Lupus2014; 23: 1265–1268.
37.
ChristensenTDLarsenTBJensenC, et al.International normalized ratio (INR) measured on the CoaguChek S and XS compared with the laboratory for determination of precision and accuracy. Thromb Haemost2009; 101: 563–569.
38.
HeneghanCAlonso-CoelloPGarcia-AlaminoJM, et al.Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Lancet2006; 367: 404–411.
39.
BloomfieldHEKrauseAGreerN, et al.Meta-analysis: effect of patient self-testing and self-management of long-term anticoagulation on major clinical outcomes. Ann Intern Med2011; 154: 472–482.
40.
BraunSWatzkeHHasenkamJM, et al.Performance evaluation of the new CoaguChek XS system compared with the established CoaguChek system by patients experienced in INR self-management. Thromb Haemost2007; 97: 310–314.
41.
IsertMMiesbachWSchüttfortG, et al.Monitoring anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Hematol2015; 94: 1291–1299.
42.
LawrieASHillsJLongairI, et al.The clinical significance of differences between point-of-care and laboratory INR methods in over-anticoagulated patients. Thromb Res2012; 130: 110–114.
43.
HurMKimHParkCM, et al.Comparison of international normalized ratio measurement between coaguchek XS Plus and STA-R coagulation analyzers. Biomed Res Int2013; 2013: 213109.
44.
AsbergAHegsethHAverinaM, et al.The individual systematic difference between CoaguChek and STA-SPA. Scand J Clin Lab Invest2019; 79: 143–147.
45.
BiedermannJS.LeebeekFWGBuhrePN, et al.Agreement between Coaguchek XS and STA-R Evolution (Hepato Quick) INR results depends on the level of INR. Thromb Res2015; 136: 652–657.
46.
BakerWSAlbrightKJBermanM, et al.POCT PT INR – is it adequate for patient care? A comparison of the Roche Coaguchek XS vs. Stago Star vs. Siemens BCS in patients routinely seen in an anticoagulation clinic. Clin Chim Acta2017; 472: 139–145.
47.
Urgent medical device correction: CoaguChek XS PT test for professional and patient self-testing usedalternate testing recommended for INR values above 4.5. Indianapolis, IN: Roche Diagnostics, 2018.
TrautschMNickerson-TroyJMooreR, et al.Clinical effects of calibration of CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips on Anticoagulation Management Services. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)2020; 60: 72–75.
50.
Duarte-GarcíaAPhamMMCrowsonCS, et al.The epidemiology of antiphospholipid syndrome: a population-based study. Arthritis Rheumatol2019; 71(9): 1545–1552.
