RESUMEN
Measuring von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity is essential for the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD). The VWF activity is usually assessed based on measurement of the ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo). However, that test is technically challenging and has high intra- and inter-assay variabilities. A new automated chemiluminescent immunoassay VWF activity has recently become commercially available (HemosIL AcuStar von Willebrand Factor Ristocetin Cofactor Activity). The main objective of this study was to evaluate this new method and to compare it with the VWF:RCo assay as the reference method. We studied 91 samples, 18 healthy volunteers samples and 73 samples from patients (VWF:RCo level <50 IU dL(-1) ): 29 type 1 VWD, 13 type 2A, 5 type 2B, 5 type 2M, 3 type 2N, 5 type 3, 4 type 3 under treatment, 5 type 3 carriers and 4 samples with other pathologies. The HemosIL AcuStar VWF:RCo assay was 96% sensitive and 100% specific for detecting VWF abnormalities. The good analytical performance, and the sensitivity and specificity of HemosIL AcuStar VWF:RCo to detect VWF deficiency renders it a suitable method for VWD screening.
Asunto(s)
Inmunoensayo/métodos , Mediciones Luminiscentes/métodos , Ristocetina/análisis , Factor de von Willebrand/análisis , Automatización , Humanos , Fenotipo , Ristocetina/química , Ristocetina/metabolismo , Enfermedades de von Willebrand/diagnósticoRESUMEN
Head-on comparative studies of factor IX (FIX) concentrates performed under standardized conditions are rarely conducted regardless of being a valuable instrument guiding health care providers towards better informed and cost-effective decisions. This study is an extension of a multicentre study that assessed the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of AlphaNine(®) in 25 previously treated patients with severe haemophilia B (FIX:C ≤ 2%). After a washout period ≥ 7 days following the last PK performed with AlphaNine(®) after a dose of 65-75 IU kg(-1) , an identical PK study was performed with BeneFIX(®) on 22 of the same patients. Venous blood samples for analysis were taken at baseline and at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 9, 24, 48, 72 and 74 h post infusion. The outcomes of the comparison of the PK parameters were as follows: Mean (± SD) in vivo recovery (IVR) was 1.3 ± 0.4 IU dL(-1) per IU kg(-1) for AlphaNine(®) and 1.0 ± 0.3 IU dL(-1) per IU kg(-1) for BeneFIX(®) (P < 0.01). Mean terminal half-life, mean residence time, area under the curve, clearance and volume of distribution of BeneFIX(®) were 36.0 ± 12.8 h, 39.3 ± 13.9 h, 1631 ± 467 IU h dL(-1) , 0.046 ± 0.01 dL kg(-1) min(-1) and 1.75 ± 0.52 mL kg(-1) respectively. These values were not significantly different to those observed in AlphaNine(®), although BeneFIX(®) displayed higher than expected IVR values and lower than expected clearance values. In conclusion, AlphaNine(®) showed a comparable half-life, but an IVR significantly higher than that of BeneFIX(®). This dissimilarity may have implications on dosing requirements for on-demand treatment regimes affecting optimal resource allocation.