This guidance document was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) for providing haemostasis-related guidance documents for clinical laboratories. This inaugural coagulation ICSH document was developed by an ad hoc committee, comprised of international clinical and laboratory direct acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) experts. The committee developed consensus recommendations for laboratory measurement of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban), which would be germane for laboratories assessing DOAC anticoagulation. This guidance document addresses all phases of laboratory DOAC measurements, including pre-analytical (e.g. preferred time sample collection, preferred sample type, sample stability), analytical (gold standard method, screening and quantifying methods) and post analytical (e.g. reporting units, quality assurance). The committee addressed the use and limitations of screening tests such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time as well as viscoelastic measurements of clotting blood and point of care methods. Additionally, the committee provided recommendations for the proper validation or verification of performance of laboratory assays prior to implementation for clinical use, and external quality assurance to provide continuous assessment of testing and reporting method.

To cite this article: Douxfils J, Ageno W, Samama C-M, Lessire S, ten Cate H, Verhamme P, Dogn e J-M, Mullier F. Laboratory testing in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a practical guide for clinicians. J Thromb Haemost 2018; 16: 209-19. Click to hear Dr Baglin's perspective on the role of the laboratory in treatment with new oral anticoagulants Summary. One of the key benefits of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is that they do not require routine laboratory monitoring. Nevertheless, assessment of DOAC exposure and anticoagulant effects may become useful in various clinical scenarios. The five approved DOACs (apixaban, betrixaban, dabigatran etexilate, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) have different characteristics impacting assay selection and the interpretation of results. This article provides an updated overview on (i) which test to use (and their advantages and limitations), (ii) when to assay DOAC levels, (iii) how to interpret the results relating to bleeding risk, emergency situations and perioperative management, and (iv) what is the impact of DOACs on routine and specialized coagulation assays. Assays for anti-Xa or anti-IIa activity are the preferred methods when quantitative information is useful, although the situations in which to test for DOAC levels are still debated. Different reagent sensitivities and variabilities in laboratory calibrations impact assay results. International calibration standards for all specific tests for each DOAC are needed to reduce the inter-laboratory variability and allow inter-study comparisons. The impact of the DOACs on hemostasis testing may cause falsepositive or false-negative results; however, these can be minimized by using specific assays and collecting blood samples at trough concentrations. Finally, prospective clinical trials are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of proposed laboratory thresholds in relation to clinical decisions. We offer recommendations on the tests to use for measuring DOACs and practical guidance on laboratory testing to help patient management and avoid diagnostic errors.

No abstract

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alpha. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author’s personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

Introduction: Several studies reported on the humoral response in subjects having received the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. However, data on the kinetics of antibodies 3 months postvaccination are currently lacking and are important to drive the future vaccination strategy. Methods:The CRO-VAX HCP study is an ongoing multicenter, prospective and interventional study designed to assess the antibody response in a population of healthcare professionals who had received two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Two-hundred individuals underwent a blood drawn within 2 days before the first vaccine dose. One-hundred and forty-two persons (71%)were categorized as seronegative at baseline while 58 (29%) were seropositive. Samples were then collected after 14, 28, 42, 56, and 90 days. Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit of the spike protein were measured in all individuals at different time points.Results: Using a one-compartment kinetics model, the time to maximum concentration was estimated at 36 ± 3 days after the first dose and the estimated half-life of antibodies was 55 days (95% CI: 37-107 days) in seronegative participants. In seropositive participants, the time to maximum concentration was estimated at 24 ± 4 days and the estimated half-life was 80 days (95% CI: 46-303 days). The antibody response was higher in seropositive compared to seronegative participants. Conclusion:In both seropositive and seronegative subjects, a significant antibody decline was observed at 3 months compared to the peak response. Nevertheless, the humoral response remained robust in all participants.