ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Preliminary Evaluation of a Novel Lupus Anticoagulant Activity Assay Unaffected by Anticoagulants.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, clinical laboratories commonly assess lupus anticoagulant (LA) activity using phospholipid-dependent coagulation assays as part of the diagnostic evaluation of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). However, LA detection involves complex procedures and may yield false-positive results in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This study aimed to clarify the effects of anticoagulants on guideline-based LA testing (diluted Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and/or LA-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)) and to evaluate whether they interfere with accurate LA assessment. We also explore a simple one-step method to minimize anticoagulant interference and improve diagnostic efficiency.
methodsWe developed a one-step method for assessing LA activity by calculating the LA-sensitivity ratio (LA-SR), defined as the ratio of APTT measured using high- and low-sensitivity APTT reagents. The clinical utility of the LA-SR assay was evaluated using plasma samples from 57 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, 74 patients with prolonged APTT, and DOAC-spiked plasmas.
resultsThe method showed agreement with the guideline-based LA testing. Of the 57 cases, 14 were LA-positive and 38 were LA-negative according to guideline-based testing. Among the 43 cases classified as LA-negative, five showed elevated LA-SR values despite negative guideline-based results. The LA-SR assay was minimally affected by DOACs, warfarin, heparin, or coagulation factor deficiencies.
conclusionThis LA-SR-based method may serve as a useful screening tool for the evaluation of LA activity. A negative LA-SR result may help identify samples unlikely to have LA activity, while positive results should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed using guideline-based testing.
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.