4.6 Article

The utility of ADAMTS13 in differentiating TTP from other acute thrombotic microangiopathies: results from the UK TTP Registry

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 171, 期 5, 页码 830-835

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13654

关键词

thrombotic microangiopathies; thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura; haemolytic uraemic syndrome; ADAMTS13

资金

  1. Alexion
  2. MRC [G0800671] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. British Heart Foundation [FS/10/013/28073] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [G0800671] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thrombotic microangiopathies (TMAs) are frequently difficult to differentiate clinically, and measurement of ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13) remains vital in thrombotic thrombocytopcnic purpura (TIP) diagnosis. We retrospectively reviewed cases referred for ADAMTS13 testing, using UK TIP Registry screening data. Of a total 810 cases, 350 were confirmed as TIP. The 460 non-TIP cases comprised secondary TMAs (24.57%) and haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) (27.17% aHUS, 2.83% Shiga-like toxin-producing E. coli [STEC]-HUS); the remainder were TMAs with no clear association, not TMAs, or had no confirmed diagnosis. ADAMTS13 levels were significantly lower in TIP than STEC-HUS, aHUS and other TMAs. TIP patients had significantly lower platelet count (15 x 10(9)/l; range 0-96) than aHUS (57 x 10(9)/1; range 13-145, P < 0.0001) or STEC-HUS (35 x 10(9)/l: range 14-106, P < 0.0001); they also had lower creatinine levels (92 mu mol/l; range 43-374) than aHUS (255 mu mol/l; range 23-941, P < 0.0001) and STEC-HUS (324 mu mol/l; range 117-639, P < 0.0001). However, 12/34 (35.3%) aHUS patients had a platelet count <30 x 10(9)/l and 26/150 (17.3%) of TIP patients had a platelet count >30 x 10(9)/l; 23/150 (15.3%) of TIP patients had a creatinine level >150 mu mol/l. This study highlights the wide variety of TMA presentations, and confirms the utility of ADAMTS13 testing in TTP diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据