Anticoagulant drugs have been used to prevent and treat thrombosis. However, they are associated with risk of hemorrhage. Therefore, prior to their clinical use, it is important to assess the risk of bleeding and thrombosis. In case of older anticoagulant drugs like heparin and warfarin, dose adjustment is required owing to narrow therapeutic ranges. The established monitoring methods for heparin and warfarin are activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)/anti-Xa assay and prothrombin time – international normalized ratio (PT-INR), respectively. Since 2008, new generation anticoagulant drugs, called direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), have been widely prescribed to prevent and treat several thromboembolic diseases. Although the use of DOACs without routine monitoring and frequent dose adjustment has been shown to be safe and effective, there may be clinical circumstances in specific patients when measurement of the anticoagulant effects of DOACs is required. Recently, anticoagulation therapy has received attention when treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of anticoagulant drugs—heparin, warfarin, and DOACs and describe the methods used for the measurement of their effects. In addition, we discuss the latest findings on thrombosis mechanism in patients with COVID-19 with respect to biological chemistry.

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is classified in the antibody family that is recognized as antiphospholipid antibodies. Guidelines for LA detection recommend mixing test interpretation with either a mixing test specific cut-off (MTC) or index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA). We previously evidenced that MTC was superior to ICA in detecting the in vitro inhibition of LA with a single dilute APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) and dRVVT (diluted Russell's viper venom time) pairing. The objective in the present study was to compare the LA diagnostic effectiveness of MTC and ICA by multiple APTT and dRVVT reagents. One hundred-five samples from non-anticoagulated patients positive for LA in the dilute APTT (dAPTT) and dRVVT reagent pairing employed for diagnostic examination were performed by undiluted and in a 1:1 mix with normal pooled plasma with four additional APTT reagents and another dRVVT reagent (dRVVT B). Frequencies of MTC and ICA positivity were determined from samples LA positive in undiluted plasma. MTC positivity in mixing test were 63%, 77%, 80%, 84%, 46%, 81%, and 72% in 4 APTT, dAPTT and 2 dRVVT, respectively. ICA positivity were 47%, 67%, 58%, 54%, 42%, 47%, and 29%, respectively. There were no samples of ICA-positive/MTC-negative with any reagent. The data indicate that MTC is superior to ICA for LA detection in mixing tests in multiple reagents and reagent types. Although mixing tests may make weak LA samples appear negative, the efficacy of LA detection can be improved by the method to interpret the results.

Background Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is classified in the antibody family that is recognized in antiphospholipid syndrome. Mixing tests are recommended for LA detection, and either a mixing test–specific cutoff (MTC) or index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) is used for the interpretation. Although we previously showed MTC had higher sensitivity for LA than ICA, there are few studies investigating specificity. Objectives To investigate specificity of multiple activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and diluted Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) reagents for inhibitors using plasmas with non-LA causes of prolonged clotting times, interpreted with MTC and ICA. Methods Seventy-six factor-deficient samples (either artificially prepared, hereditary deficiency, or warfarin), and 12 inhibitors (either coagulation factor inhibitors, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) were used. Samples were tested with 4 APTTs, 1 dilute APTT (dAPTT), and 2 dRVVT reagents, and all elevated screen ratios were followed up with mixing tests. Frequencies of corrected and not-corrected results were calculated. Results The frequency of MTC and ICA corrected results, suggesting factor deficiency, were 5% to 43% and 79% to 100%, respectively, except for dAPTT, where MTC and ICA performed similarly. Frequencies of MTC and ICA not-corrected results, suggesting inhibition, were 29% to 100% and 25% to 67%, respectively. Conclusions The data indicate that MTC has a tendency to generate not-corrected mixing tests in factor-deficient, warfarin, and other inhibitor samples, while ICA exhibited higher specificity. When we perform the mixing test and interpret the data, it is important to understand the characteristics of the indexes for maximizing the diagnostic potential of mixing test.