These results, obtained in a small series of patients, suggest that both the ProC Global assay and the PCP Test would be suitable, using well-defined cut-off levels, to identify all the carriers of the Factor V Leiden mutation and all the patients with a protein C deficiency or with combined defects of the protein C pathway. For both assays, however, the sensitivity for protein S deficiency was below 60%. These results in selected patients are congruent with those previously reported in the literature about the ProC Global assay, the PCP Test, and other assays evaluating the functionality of the protein C anticoagulant pathway. All demonstrated a weak sensitivity to protein S deficiency, suggesting that protein S plays only a minor role as an APC cofactor in such global assays. A major discrepancy between the two evaluated assays was obtained in the group of patients without abnormality of the protein C pathway. Actually, using the ProC Global assay, more than 40% of the patients had a decreased PCAT-NR while presenting with none of the three tested abnormalities, whereas none of the studied patients had a ratio below 1.80, and only 5 of 143 (3.5%) had a ratio below 2.00 when using the PCP Test. The observation that around 40% of the control patients had a decreased PCAT-NR could suggest the influence of currently unknown defects of the protein C/protein S pathway on the ProC Global assay. It could also be hypothesized that the higher factor VIII levels already reported in patients with a history of thrombosis than in controls had a significant role in the low responsiveness, but this parameter was not tested in the authors' series. In that connection, it is also well established that elevated factor VIII levels both shorten the APTT and reduce the anticoagulant effect of heparin when evaluated using APTT. Actually, some of the samples investigated in this study were obtained during the acute phase of thrombosis. It is not possible to draw out the hypothesis of an association of biologically undetectable minor changes in various factors involved in the protein C anticoagulant pathway; all the individual factors would remain within their normal ranges. Finally, because 40% of the patients without abnormalities of the protein C pathway had a decreased PCAT-NR, the question arises whether the ProC Global assay might in itself be a biologic marker of thrombophilia, independent of its sensitivity for abnormalities of the protein C anticoagulant pathway. In that connection, the correlation between the result of the ProC Global assay and the risk for thromboembolism was recently evaluated by two different groups. In both cases, the preliminary results suggested that a decreased response to the ProC Global assay might be an independent risk factor for venous thrombosis. The two global assays could therefore have distinctly different applications. If the global assays are used in the hemostasis laboratory to screen for abnormalities of the protein C pathway, and thus to rationalize the use of specific assays, the PCP Test should be chosen, because of its high specificity. Because only 3.5% of the control patients had a ratio below 2.00 (and none had a ratio below 1.80), the PCP Test could be accurately used as a first-step assay in the laboratory screening for these abnormalities of the protein C anticoagulant pathway. Using such a flow chart, the specific assays for APC resistance or the identification of the factor V Leiden mutation and protein C would be performed only in case of a ratio below a cut-off defined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-analysis in unselected patients. Because of the weak sensitivity of this assay to both constitutional and acquired protein S deficiencies (below 15% using 1.80 as the cut-off level, or 60% using 2.00), the measurement of this parameter had to be performed in all cases. If, on the other hand, the assay is used to screen for risk factors for thrombosis, the ProC Global assay could b