E. Bison

Clinical course of high‐risk patients diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome

See also Galli M. The antiphospholipid triangle. This issue, pp 234–6.

Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: a multicenter prospective study

Persistent antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies are occasionally found in subjects without prior history of thromboembolic events (TEs), raising the dilemma of whether to initiate or not a primary thromboprophylaxis. A first TE is considered rare in aPL carriers, but previous studies did not consider the aPL profile nor was the test positivity confirmed in a reference laboratory. In this study, 104 subjects with high-risk aPL profile (positive lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin, and anti-β(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies, triple positivity) confirmed in a reference laboratory, were followed up for a mean of 4.5 years. There were 25 first TEs (5.3% per year): the cumulative incidence after 10 years was 37.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.9%-54.3%). On multivariate analysis, male sex (hazard ratio = 4.4; 95% CI, 1.5-13.1, P = .007) and risk factors for venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3-8.5, P = .01) were independent predictors for TEs. Aspirin did not significantly affect the incidence of TE. In conclusion, the occurrence of a first TE in carriers of high-risk aPL profile is considerable; it is more frequent among male subjects and in the presence of additional risk factors for venous TE. These data can help in the decision to initiate primary thromboprophylaxis in these subjects.

Influence of different IgG anticardiolipin antibody cut‐off values on antiphospholipid syndrome classification

Summary.  Background: While medium to high titers of anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, defined as >40 GPL units or >99th percentile, is a laboratory criteria for the ‘definite’ diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), agreement between the two cut‐offs has not been validated. Objective: To validate the current aCL laboratory criterion by verifying the effect of the two cut‐offs on APS classification. Patients/methods: Ninety aCL positive APS patients were selected on the basis of their GPL values above the 99th percentile (17.4 GPL), which was calculated by testing 100 age‐ and sex‐matched healthy subjects. Results: A significant difference in the IgG positivity (P < 0.0001) was found between the APS laboratory profiles as 20 out of the 24 (83.3%) patients with single positivity (aCL alone), six out of the 23 (26.1%) with double positivity (aCL plus lupus anticoagulant or anti‐β2glycoprotein I), and none out of the 43 with triple positivity (aCL plus lupus anticoagulant and anti‐β2glycoprotein I) had titers between the 99th percentile and 40 GPL units. Moreover, the rate of aCL values between the 99th percentile and 40 GPL units was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in patients with pregnancy morbidity (73.7%) as compared to those with vascular thrombosis (16.9%) and those with both conditions (16.7%). Conclusion: The 99th percentile cut‐off level seems more sensitive than the >40 GPL value for APS classification, as it includes subjects with aCL positivity alone as well as patients with pregnancy morbidity.

Antiphospholipid syndrome: antibodies to Domain 1 of β2-glycoprotein 1 correctly classify patients at risk

Determination of lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) and β2‐Glycoprotein 1 (aβ2GP1) antibodies is mandatory to classify patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) into risk categories.

Correct laboratory approach to APS diagnosis and monitoring

Triple positivity (positive Lupus Anticoagulant, anticardiolipin and anti β2-glycoptrotein I antibodies) identifies the pathogenic autoantibody (anti Domain I of β2-glycoptroteinI) that is present in patients with definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS). This is supported by the fact that aβ2GPI antibodies obtained by affinity purification in these patients possess LA activity. Moreover, patients and carriers of this profile carry a much higher risk of thrombosis and pregnancy loss than APS patients with positivity for only one of the tests. Thus, very different risk categories exist among patients with APS as well as among carriers of aPL. Clinical studies and interventional trials should first take these high risk subjects into consideration.

Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: Rationale and design of the Trial on Rivaroxaban in AntiPhospholipid Syndrome (TRAPS) trial:

Background New oral anticoagulants may simplify long-term therapy in conditions requiring anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been extensively studied and is now approved for the prevention and therapy of a number of thromboembolic conditions. Objective and methods This is a multicentre, randomized, open-label, study that will evaluate if Rivaroxaban 20 mg od (or 15 mg od in patients with moderate renal insufficiency) is non-inferior to warfarin (INR target 2.5), for the prevention of thromboembolic events, major bleeding and death in high risk (triple positive) patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Secondary endpoints will assess the incidence of any individual component of the composite end point. An external adjudication committee will evaluate all suspected outcome events. This will be a unique trial, as it will enrol the biggest homogenous cohort of high risk APS individuals. Conclusion The methods and the study design should be appropriate to achieve study results that are both scientifically valid and relevant to clinical practice.

Confirmation of initial antiphospholipid antibody positivity depends on the antiphospholipid antibody profile

The revised classification criteria for the antiphospholipid syndrome state that antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies (lupus anticoagulant [LAC] and/or anticardiolipin [aCL] and/or anti‐β2‐glycoprotein I [aβ2GPI] antibodies) should be detected on two or more occasions at least 12 weeks apart. Consequently, classification of patient risk and adequacy of treatment may be deferred by 3 months.

What have we learned about antiphospholipid syndrome from patients and antiphospholipid carrier cohorts

Venous or arterial thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) define the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). In terms of accepted APS criteria, aPL are detected by one coagulation test (lupus anticoagulant; LAC) and two immunoassays (anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2-glycoptrotein I antibodies). In patients with APS, a single positive test carries a much lower risk of thrombosis recurrence or new pregnancy loss than does multiple (or triple) positivity. The same holds true for aPL carriers, namely subjects with laboratory tests but without clinical criteria for APS. Thus, very different risk categories exist among patients with APS as well as in carriers of aPL. Triple positivity apparently identifies the pathogenic autoantibody (antidomain I-II of β2-glycoptrotein I); it is in this category of patients that trials on new therapeutic strategies should focus.

Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in carriers of isolated lupus anticoagulant

Among the so called antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies Lupus Anticoagulant (LAC) is considered the strongest risk factor for thromboembolic events. In individuals without a previous thromboembolic event (carriers), LAC is a risk factor when associated with the presence of anticardiolipin (aCL) and aβ2-Glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies. On the other hand, data on carriers of isolated LAC positivity are sparse and inconclusive. The aim of this study was to prospectively determine the incidence of thrombosis in a cohort of carriers of isolated LAC positivity. One-hundred seventy-nine carriers of LAC confirmed twelve weeks apart and in a reference laboratory were studied. During a total follow up of 552 person-years, there were seven thromboembolic events (1.3% person-y). All the seven patients had at least one adjunctive major risk factor for thrombosis. The cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events was 3.1% (95% CI 0.6-5.6) after 2years, and 5.9% (95% CI 1.2-10.6) after 5 and 10years. On a multivariate regression analysis considering age, sex, autoimmune disease, risk factors for arterial and venous thrombosis, use of aspirin, only age was found to be an independent predictor of thromboembolic events (HR=1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, p=0.02). These data might be relevant in clinical practice and underline the importance of differentiating LAC carriers in terms of isolated positivity or positivity associated with the presence of antibodies to aCL and β2-glycoprotein I.

Antibodies to Domain 4/5 (Dm4/5) of β2-Glycoprotein 1 (β2GP1) in different antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody profiles

BACKGROUND Determination of the three recommended tests for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome [Lupus Anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti β2-Glycoprotein 1 (aβ2GP1) antibodies] allow physicians to allocate patients into classification (risk) categories. OBJECTIVES To measure antibodies of IgG isotype directed towards Domain 4/5 (Dm4/5) of β2GP1. PATIENTS/METHODS In this cross-sectional study we measured IgG aβ2GP1-Dm4/5 in a group of individuals positive for IgG aβ2GP1 and classified as triple (LAC+, IgG aCL+, IgG aβ2GP1+, n=32), double (LAC-, IgG aCL+, IgG aβ2GP1+, n=23) or single positive (LA-, IgG aCL-, IgG aβ2GP1+, n=10). RESULTS Geometric mean and standard deviation of IgG aβ2GP1 values expressed as Chemiluminescent Units (CU) in triple, double, single positive groups and in 40 healthy individuals were 1795±783, 321±181, 29±8 and 5.0±1.0, respectively (ANOVA p<0.0001). Geometric mean and standard deviation of IgG aβ2GP1-Dm4/5 expressed as Optical Density (OD) in triple, double and single positive groups and in 40 healthy individuals were 0.16±0.13, 0.16±0.15 and 0.26±0.15, 0.13±0,11, respectively (ANOVA p<0.002). Individuals in the single positive group, expressed significantly higher values with respect to triple (p=0.04) and double (p=0.03) positive groups. Approximate OD cut-off value (99° percentile) calculated in 40 normal control subjects is 0.404. Positivity to IgG aβ2GP1-Dm4/5 according to this cutoff was found in only 5 individuals, 3 in triple positive and 2 in single positive groups and was not associated with thromboembolism. CONCLUSION Mean level of IgG aβ2GP1-Dm4/5 is higher in single positive group. There is no association between positivity to IgG aβ2GP1-Dm4/5 and thromboembolic events.