ArticleInternational journal of laboratory hematology2020
Comparison between coagulation factor VIII quantified with one-stage activity assay and with mass spectrometry in haemophilia A patients: Proof of principle.
Article in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of emicizumab by mass spectrometry in plasma of people with hemophilia A: A method validation study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Comparison between coagulation factor VIII quantified with one-stage activity assay and with mass spectrometry in haemophilia A patients: Proof of principle.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2020Article
- Quantifying Lupus Anticoagulant Interference in Intrinsic Coagulation Factor Activity Assays and Evaluating the Corrective Performance of the SCT-Based Method.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHaemophilia A is a hereditary bleeding disorder caused by a factor VIII (FVIII) deficiency. As biomarker, FVIII activity is used to classify disease severity and to monitor treatment. The one-stage clotting assay (OSA) is performed to measure FVIII activity, but OSA's limitations may result in misclassification of disease severity or suboptimal monitoring of treatment. Measurement of FVIII plasma concentration with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) might overcome these challenges. The objective is to investigate the correlation between FVIII activity and concentration, and determinants for differences between the two methods.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, all haemophilia A patients receiving standard-of-care were eligible for inclusion. Within the activity categories of <1 IU/dL, 1-5 IU/dL, >5-40 IU/dL, >40-150 IU/dL and >150-600 IU/dL, we randomly selected 15-20 plasma samples and compared FVIII concentration (LC-MS/MS) to FVIII activity (OSA) with linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Potential determinants for differences were analysed with linear regression.
resultsInclusion was 87 samples. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated an overall mean difference of -1% with an SD of 64% between the two methods. Large differences were correlated with the presence of anti-FVIII antibodies (133% [95% CI: 81, 185] n = 5) and use of exogenous FVIII products (-37% [95% CI: -65,-9] n = 58), for example plasma-derived and B-domain-modified FVIII products.
conclusionsDespite good overall correlation between the two methods, relative differences were large, especially for samples with anti-FVIII antibodies or exogenous FVIII products. These differences may have clinical impact. More research is needed to determine the value of FVIII plasma concentration in comparison with FVIII activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.