Summary. Background: Type 2A and 2M von Willebrand disease (VWD2A and VWD2M) are characterized by the presence of a dysfunctional von Willebrand factor (VWF) and a variable bleeding tendency. So far, a head-to-head comparison of the clinical history and bleeding risk between VWD2A and VWD2M has never been provided in a prospective manner. Aim of the study: We assessed the bleeding incidence rate and clinical characteristics in two cohorts of 17 families (46 patients) with VWD2A and 15 families (61 patients) with VWD2M prospectively followed-up for 24 months. VWF gene mutations were characterized in all of them. Results: Mean bleeding score (BS) and VWF antigen at enrollment were significantly higher in VWD2A patients (P = 0.007). No correlation between VWF activity or factor VIII levels and the severity of BS was observed. The incidence rate of spontaneous bleeding requiring treatment was 107/100 patient-years (95% CI, 88.3-131) in VWD2A compared with 40/ 100 patient-years (95% CI, 30-53) in VWD2M (P < 0.001). The risk of bleeding was significantly higher in patients with BS ‡ 10 at enrollment compared with those with BS 0-2. Furthermore, 54 episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 17/46 (36.9%) VWD2A patients and seven in 2/61 (3.3%) VWD2M patients (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Bleeding tendency in VWD2A is greater than that of VWD2M, is not explained by factor VIII or VWF levels and is mainly due to an increased incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Summary. The ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo) is the reference method for assessing von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity in the diagnosis of von Willebrand's Disease (VWD). However, the assay suffers from poor reproducibility and sensitivity at low levels of VWF and is labour intensive. We have undertaken an evaluation of a new immunoturbidimetric VWF activity (VWF:Ac) assay (INNOVANCE ® VWF Ac. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Marburg, Germany) relative to an established platelet-based VWF:RCo method. Samples from 50 healthy normal subjects, 80 patients with VWD and 50 samples that exhibited 'HIL' (i.e. Haemolysis, Icterus or Lipaemia) were studied. VWF: Ac, VWF:RCo and VWF:Ag were performed on a CSanalyser (Sysmex UK Ltd, Milton Keynes, UK), all reagents were from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics. The VWF:Ac assay, gave low intra-and inter-assay imprecision (over a 31-day period, n = 200 replicate readings) using commercial normal (Mean 96.2 IU dL À1 , CV < 3.0%) and pathological (Mean 36.1 IU dL À1 , CV < 3.5%) control plasmas. The normal and clinical samples exhibited good correlation between VWF:RCo (range 3-753IU dL À1) and VWF: Ac (rs = 0.97, P < 0.0001), with a mean bias of 5.6 IU dL À1. Ratios of VWF:Ac and VWF:RCo to VWF:Ag in the VWD samples were comparable, although VWF:Ac had a superior lower level of detection to that of VWF:RCo (3% and 5% respectively). A subset (n = 97) of VWD and HIL samples were analysed for VWF:Ac at two different dilutions to assess the effect on relative potency, no significant difference was observed (P = 0.111). The INNOVANCE ® VWF Ac assay was shown to be reliable and precise.

BackgroundThe phenotypic diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a multistep process with classification dependent on the quantification of von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimeric structure. VWF multimer analysis is a technically challenging, lengthy and non‐standardised assay, usually performed in specialist laboratories. Recently, a new semi‐automated multimer assay, the Hydragel 5 von Willebrand multimers (H5VWM) has become available.ObjectivesThis study, performed in two European centres, compared existing in‐house multimer assays to the H5VWM in individuals with and without VWD.ResultsOverall agreement of 91.1% was observed in 74 individuals with normal VWF levels, 57 patients grouped as type 1 VWD, 33 type 2A, 16 type 2B, 28 type 2M, 11 type 2N. Patients tested following Desmopressin or VWF concentrate, with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and acquired von Willebrand syndrome were also evaluated. Many of the discrepancies between methods were in patients with genetic mutations linked to more than one type of VWD including p.R1374C/H and p.R1315C. Quantifiable multimer results were available within one working day. Densitometry improved the interpretation of the multimers with slight structural variations that were not apparent by visual inspection of the in‐house method.Conclusions5VWM was a rapid, sensitive, standardised assay which used existing technology and could be included as an initial screen of VWF multimers in a VWD diagnostic algorithm in conjunction with traditional multimer analysis.

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is caused by a quantitative and/or qualitative deficiency of the von Willebrand factor (VWF). The laboratory diagnosis of VWD is dependent on the measurement of VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo). The aim of this study was to undertake a two-centre evaluation of two new automated VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo assays systems from Instrumentation Laboratory (Bedford, USA). Using the two new analytical systems that operated with different detection principles: immunoturbidimetric (TOP500 analyser) and chemiluminescent (AcuStar analyser), VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo levels were determined in samples from 171 healthy normal subjects, 80 VWD patients (16 type 1, 58 type 2 and 6 type 3) and 7 acquired von Willebrand syndrome patients. With commercial lyophilized normal and pathological plasmas VWF: Ag and VWF:RCo assays performed on both analysers exhibited low levels of inter-assay imprecision (AcuStar: CV% range 3.3-6.9; TOP500: CV% range 2.6-6.3). Samples from normal healthy subjects (range: VWF:Ag 44.6-173.9 IU dL(-1) ; VWF:RCo 43.1-191.5 IU dL(-1)) and patients (range: VWF:Ag <0.3-115.1 IU dL(-1) ; VWF:RCo <0.5-57.2 IU dL(-1)) showed a good correlation between the two VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo methods (rs = 0.92 and 0.82 respectively), with only a few inconsistent cases among the patients' samples evaluated. The chemiluminescent assays had a lower limit of detection for both VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo compared to immunoturbidimetric tests (0.3 IU dL(-1) vs. 2.2 IU dL(-1) and 0.5 IU dL(-1) vs. 4.4 IU dL(-1) respectively). The TOP500 and AcuStar VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo assays were precise and compare well between centres, making these systems suitable for the diagnosis of VWD in non-specialized and reference laboratories.

An increased von Willebrand factor propeptide (VWFpp) to VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) ratio (VWFpp/VWF:Ag) indicates an enhanced clearance of VWF. This finding has been described in von Willebrand disease (VWD) and in acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS). A distinction between these two diseases, one congenital and the other acquired, is primarily based on family and personal history of bleeding. However, if this information is scanty, the diagnosis might be challenging due to the lack of an effective diagnostic biomarker. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the ability of VWFpp/VWF:Ag for the differential diagnosis between VWD and AVWS. VWFpp/VWF:Ag was measured in a group of 153 patients (125 with VWD and 28 with AVWS). Most patients with AVWS and VWD showed an increased VWFpp/VWF:Ag, although to variable degrees. A marked increase of VWFpp/VWF:Ag was mainly associated with the diagnosis of AVWS and VWD type 1 Vicenza. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to identify the optimal cutoff of VWFpp/VWF:Ag for discrimination of patients with a modestly increased (most VWD cases) versus those with a markedly increased clearance (AVWS and VWD type 1 Vicenza), and this cutoff was identified at the value of 3.9 (sensitivity: 0.70, specificity: 0.97). The ROC curve sorting from a logistic model containing VWFpp/VWF:Ag, age, and sex had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.95). A subsequent molecular evaluation discriminated VWD type 1 Vicenza from AVWS. In conclusion, VWFpp/VWF:Ag appears helpful to discriminate patients with a markedly increase VWF clearance (AVWS or VWD type 1 Vicenza) from those with a modestly increased clearance (most VWD patients).