Comparative study between obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome and obstetric morbidity related with antiphospholipid antibodies

Clinical Features Between Primary Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Risk Factors of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Retrospective Study of 1006 Cases

PROBLEM

To compare the clinical characteristics and pregnancy outcomes between patients with primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS) and those with primary non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (NC-OAPS), and to identify the risk factors of adverse pregnancy outcomes in both groups.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was performed in a university hospital of western China, including 141 patients with OAPS and 865 patients with NC-OAPS. The clinical characteristics, pregnancy complications, and obstetric outcomes of the cohorts were collected from the hospital system and were compared by univariable analysis, and the independent risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) were investigated by logistic regression analysis in these two populations.

RESULTS

The OAPS patients had a significantly higher risk for stillbirths compared to the NC-OAPS patients, while the NC-OAPS group had a significantly higher risk for preterm birth and overall APO. Double aPL positivity, triple aPL positivity, and gestational hypertension were the independent risk factors for APO in OAPS patients, whereas two of the double aPL positivity subtypes, triple aPL positivity and placenta previa were independent risk factors for APO in NC-OAPS patients.

CONCLUSION

This study identified different rates in different APOs among OAPS and NC-OAPS patients. Additionally, this study revealed different risk factors for the development of APO between the two populations. These findings indicated that OAPS and NC-OAPS are two distinct entities of the same disease, providing new insights into the individualized management for patients with OAPS and NC-OAPS.

Loss of opportunities in the diagnosis and treatment of primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS): from theory to reality

OBJECTIVES

(I) To identify and measure the clinical consequences of a delayed diagnosis in patients with primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS), in terms of time and events associated to antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and (II) to evaluate the impact of their treatment status on perinatal outcomes, before and after diagnosis.

METHODS

This retrospective multicentre study included 99 POAPS women who were separated in two groups of timelines based on their diagnostic status: group 1: women who met the clinical criteria for POAPS; group 2: included the same patients from group 1 since they meet the laboratory criteria for APS. In group 1, we assessed the following variables: obstetric events, thrombotic events and time (years) to diagnosis of APS. We also compared perinatal outcomes between patients in group 1 vs. group 2. Women in group 2 were treated with standard of care for POAPS. Simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Regarding the impact of the delay on diagnosis, a total of 87 APS-related events were recorded: 46 miscarriages, 32 foetal losses and 9 premature deliveries before the 34th week due to preeclampsia, and one thrombosis. The estimated rate of preventable events was 20.58 per year/100 patients. The mean diagnostic delay time was 4.27 years. When we compared both groups during pregnancy, we found that patients in group 1 (no treatment) had a higher association with pregnancy losses [OR = 6.71 (95% CI: 3.59-12.55), p < 0.0001].

CONCLUSION

Our findings emphasize the negative impact of POAPS underdiagnosis on patient health and the critical importance of a timely intervention to improve pregnancy outcomes. Key Points •Our study shows the relevance of underdiagnosis on primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS). •These patients presented a high risk of APS-related events with each passing year. •Shorter diagnostic delay time was observed in the reference centres.

Preeclampsia and the Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by venous or arterial thrombosis and/or adverse pregnancy outcome in the presence of persistent laboratory evidence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Preeclampsia complicates about 10-17% of pregnancies with APS. However, only early onset preeclampsia (<34 weeks of gestation) belongs to the clinical criteria of APS. The similarities in the pathophysiology of early onset preeclampsia and APS emphasize an association of these two syndromes. Overall, both are the result of a defective trophoblast invasion and decidual transformation at early gestation. Women with APS are at increased risk for prematurity; the reasons are mostly iatrogenic due to placental dysfunction, such as preeclampsia or FGR. Interestingly, women with APS have also an increased risk for preterm delivery, even in the absence of FGR and preeclampsia, and therefore it is not indicated but spontaneous. The basic treatment of APS in pregnancy is low-dose aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin. Nevertheless, up to 20-30% of women develop complications at early and late gestation, despite basic treatment. Several additional treatment options have been proposed, with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) being one of the most efficient. Additionally, nutritional interventions, such as intake of vitamin D, have shown promising beneficial effects. Curcumin, due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, might be considered as an additional intervention as well.

"How we treat" clinical dilemmas in antiphospholipid syndrome: A case-based approach

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterized by thrombosis (arterial, venous, and microvascular) and/or pregnancy morbidity occurring in subjects persistently positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). While the APS classification criteria are being currently updated to improve homogeneity in clinical research, patients who seek medical treatment often have a variety of laboratory and clinical characteristics that may not completely fulfill the classification criteria for overt APS. Those cases might represent a challenge in terms of treatment and overall management. We aim to present a collection of challenging scenarios of patients who tested positive for aPL and to discuss available literature to guide the therapeutic strategies.

Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Management of Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune disorder characterized by vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity associated with persistent antiphospholipid antibody positivity. Cases fulfilling the Sydney criteria for obstetric morbidity with no previous thrombosis are known as obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS). OAPS is the most identified cause of recurrent pregnancy loss and late-pregnancy morbidity related to placental injury. Cases with incomplete clinical or laboratory data are classified as obstetric morbidity APS (OMAPS) and non-criteria OAPS (NC-OAPS), respectively. Inflammatory and thrombotic mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiology of OAPS. Trophoblasts, endothelium, platelets and innate immune cells are key cellular players. Complement activation plays a crucial pathogenic role. Secondary placental thrombosis appears by clot formation in response to tissue factor activation. New risk assessment tools could improve the prediction of obstetric complication recurrences or thromboses. The standard-of-care treatment consists of low-dose aspirin and prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. In refractory cases, the addition of hydroxychloroquine, low-dose prednisone or IVIG improve pregnancy outcomes. Statins and eculizumab are currently being tested for treating selected OAPS women. Finally, we revisited recent insights and concerns about the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of OAPS.

Bleeding and antithrombotic therapy during pregnancy in women with poor aPL-related obstetric outcomes: A survey of 1075 cases from EUROAPS registry∗

BACKGROUND

The combination of low-dose aspirin (LDA) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) until the end of gestation are the currently the accepted standard of care for the treatment of antiphospholipid-related obstetric disorders. In refractory cases, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) can be added to this standard of care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the haemostatic safety of LDA and LMWH (medium to high prophylactic doses) during pregnancy and the puerperium in women with both full-blown obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS) (Sydney criteria) and noncriteria - incomplete - OAPS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective/prospective multicentre observational study. Obstetric background, laboratory categories, delivery mode, antithrombotic regimens and bleeding complications were compared.

SETTING

A total of 30 tertiary European hospitals.

PATIENTS

Mainly, Caucasian/Arian pregnant women were included. Other ethnicities were minimally present. Women were controlled throughout pregnancy and puerperium.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end-point was to evaluate the number of major and minor haemorrhagic complications in this cohort of women. Neuraxial anaesthetic bleeding complications were particularly assessed. Secondly, we aimed to compare local/general bleeding events between groups.

RESULTS

We studied 1650 women, of whom 1000 fulfilled the Sydney criteria of the OAPS and 650 did not (noncriteria OAPS). Data on antithrombotic-related complications were available in 1075 cases (65.15%). Overall, 53 (4.93%) women had bleeding complications, with 34 being considered minor (3.16%) and 19 major (1.76%). Neither obstetric complications nor laboratory categories were bleeding-related. Assisted vaginal delivery and caesarean section were related to local haemorrhage. Heparin doses and platelet count were not associated with major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

LDA and medium to high prophylactic LMWH during pregnancy in women with full-blown OAPS/noncriteria OAPS are safe. A slight increase in bleeding risk was noted in instrumental deliveries. No women who underwent spinal or epidural anaesthesia suffered bleeding complications. No haemorrhage was observed in cases where HCQ was added to standard therapy.

Comparison of treatments for the prevention of fetal growth restriction in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Women with criteria and non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) carry an increased risk of pregnancy complications, including fetal growth restriction (FGR). The management of obstetric APS traditionally involves clinicians, obstetricians and gynaecologists; however, the most appropriate prophylactic treatment strategy for FGR prevention in APS is still debated. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NetMA) to summarize current evidence on pharmacological treatments for the prevention of FGR in APS. We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until July 2020, for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies on pregnant women with criteria or non-criteria obstetric APS. NetMA using a frequentist framework were conducted for the primary outcome (FGR) and for secondary outcomes (fetal or neonatal death and preterm birth). Adverse events were narratively summarised. Out of 1124 citations, we included eight studies on 395 pregnant patients with obstetric APS treated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) + unfractionated heparin (UFH) (n = 132 patients), LDA (n = 115), LDA + low molecular weight heparin (n = 100), LDA + corticosteroids (n = 29), LDA + UFH + intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 7), or untreated (n = 12). No difference among treatments emerged in terms of FGR prevention, but estimates were largely imprecise, and most studies were at high/unclear risk of bias. An increased risk of fetal or neonatal death was found for LDA monotherapy as compared to LDA + heparin, and for no treatment as compared to LDA + corticosteroids. The risk of preterm birth was higher for LDA + UFH + IVIg as compared to LDA or LDA + heparin, and for LDA + corticosteroids as compared to LDA or LDA + LMWH. No treatment was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, thrombocytopenia or osteopenia.

Anticardiolipin Positivity Is Highly Associated With Intrauterine Growth Restriction in Women With Antiphospholipid Syndrome

The purpose of our study was to evaluate pregnancy outcomes of women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) positivity and assess risk factors associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnant women with aPL positivity were enrolled prospectively in China from January 2017 to March 2020. Treatment of low-dose aspirin and low molecular weight heparin were given. Pregnancy outcomes and coagulation function were recorded and compared with normal pregnancies. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors associated to intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). 270 pregnant women, including 44 diagnosed as Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), 91 as non-criteria APS (NCAPS) and 135 normal cases as control, were enrolled in the study. The live birth rate in aPL carriers and APS group was 97% and 95.5%, respectively. Adverse pregnancy outcomes did not show significant difference between aPL carriers and normal pregnancies, and between APS and NCAPS, except for IUGR. The incidence of IUGR was significantly higher in aPL carriers than normal pregnancies, and in APS patients than NCAPS (P < 0.05). After controlling for age, in vitro fertilization (IVF), pregnancy losses related to APS and treatment, anticardiolipin (aCL) positivity was the only variable significantly associated with IUGR, with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.601 (95% CI, 1.205-17.573). Better pregnant outcomes of aPL positive women, include APS and NCAPS, were achieved in our study with treatment based on low-dose aspirin (LDA) plus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The incidence of IUGR was still higher in them, and aCL positivity was the only one risk factor associated with IUGR.

Management of patients with antiphospholipid antibodies: what to do in laboratory scenarios that do not fit the guidelines

Introduction: Some patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) have not been included in randomized clinical trials or observational registries and, therefore, information on their risk of obstetric or thrombotic recurrence and optimal treatment is scarce.Areas covered: In the present review, the existing evidence regarding the management of two laboratory scenarios not covered by the guidelines is presented: (1) patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) clinical manifestations and aPL positivity not fulfilling APS laboratory criteria, and (2) the possibility of discontinuing anticoagulation in APS patients whose aPL become persistently negative.Expert opinion: Growing evidence suggests a role for low titers and 'non-criteria' aPL, especially in obstetric APS. Treatment is not formally recommended but might be considered according to the individual's risk profile. Regarding the question of whether or not to discontinue anticoagulants after the 'spontaneous' disappearance of aPL, there is no definite answer. Retrospective studies seem to suggest that withdrawal of anticoagulation could be safe in certain patients with APS, especially in those with a first provoked venous thrombosis and whose aPL became persistently negative during follow-up. Still, before the withdrawal can be recommended in routine clinical practice, multicenter and prospective studies are required to validate this hypothesis.

Immunological Risk Factors in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Guidelines Versus Current State of the Art

Around 1-5% of all couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Established risk factors include anatomical, genetic, endocrine, and hemostatic alterations. With around 50% of idiopathic cases, immunological risk factors are getting into the scientific focus, however international guidelines hardly take them into account. Within this review, the current state of immunological risk factors in RPL in international guidelines of the European Society of Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), German/Austrian/Swiss Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (DGGG/OEGGG/SGGG) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) are evaluated. Special attention was drawn to recommendations in the guidelines regarding diagnostic factors such as autoantibodies, natural killer cells, regulatory T cells, dendritic cells, plasma cells, and human leukocyte antigen system (HLA)-sharing as well as treatment options such as corticosteroids, intralipids, intravenous immunoglobulins, aspirin and heparin in RPL. Finally, the current state of the art focusing on both diagnostic and therapeutic options was summarized.

Management of Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), is an acquired autoimmune disorder characterised by thrombosis, pregnancy morbidity, and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Although venous thromboembolism is the most common manifestation, thrombotic events in APS may also occur in virtually any vascular bed, with cerebral circulation being the arterial territory most commonly affected. As APS is a heterogeneous condition, its management should be tailored with a patient-centred approach based on individual risk assessment, which includes the aPL profile, concomitant auto-immune diseases, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Although literature data are conflicting regarding primary prophylaxis, there is some evidence indicating that antiplatelet agents may reduce the risk of a first thrombotic event in individuals with a high-risk profile. In patients with thrombotic APS, current evidence-based guidelines recommend lifelong vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), preferably warfarin. The optimal intensity of anticoagulation following arterial thrombosis remains controversial. Arterial thrombosis should be treated either with high-intensity warfarin at a target INR > 3.0, or low-dose aspirin (LDA) combined with moderate-intensity warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0). It is recommended to avoid direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with high-risk APS, mainly those with triple-positive PL and previous arterial events. They would only be used exceptionally in selected patients with low-risk venous thromboembolism (VTE). In low-risk VTE patients currently treated with a DOAC due to warfarin intolerance or a previous unstable International Normalized Ratio on warfarin, the decision of continuing DOACs would be taken in carefully selected patients. In women with obstetric APS, the combination therapy with LDA plus heparin remains the conventional strategy.

"Non-criteria" antiphospholipid syndrome: A nomenclature proposal

The classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) generate discussion, with a growing impression that certain patients not fulfilling these criteria might be inadequately excluded from the classification. Nonetheless, these "non-criteria" patients are heterogeneously defined across different publications. We reviewed the "non-criteria" APS subgroups depicted in the literature and attempted to organize these subsets in a nomenclature proposal that could be used for research purposes. We established four potential patient profiles, grouped under the broad term "non-criteria APS": (A) "Seronegative APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, plus "non-criteria" manifestations, with persistently negative antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL); (B) "Clinical non-criteria APS": patients with "non-criteria" manifestations, plus aPL positivity fulfilling the classification criteria; (C) "Incomplete laboratory APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, plus positive aPL, but not fulfilling the classification criteria (low titer aPL); and (D) "Laboratory non-criteria APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, with negative or low titer criteria aPL, plus positive "non-criteria" aPL. This categorization could allow for a more homogeneous research approach to APS, enabling more sustained and universal conclusions.

Treatment of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the most common acquired thrombophilia. The clinical manifestations of APS are mainly vascular thrombosis (venous and/or arterial) and/or recurrent pregnancy morbidity with the concomitant persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Therefore, the goals of the treatment of patients with APS are reducing the pregnancy morbidity and/or the prevention of thrombotic events during the follow-up. Optimal treatment of APS has long been discussed, due to the heterogeneity of the clinical manifestations and the consequent plurality in the medical specialties involved in managing this condition. This review summarizes the available evidence on primary thromboprophylaxis in aPL-positive individuals with no prior thrombotic events, secondary prophylaxis in patients with positive history for thrombotic events, the management of refractory or difficult cases and the current strategies for the management of APS during pregnancy.

Comparative study of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS) and non-criteria obstetric APS (NC-OAPS): report of 1640 cases from the EUROAPS registry

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical features, laboratory data and fetal-maternal outcomes between 1000 women with obstetric APS (OAPS) and 640 with aPL-related obstetric complications not fulfilling Sydney criteria (non-criteria OAPS, NC-OAPS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective and prospective multicentre study from the European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome.

RESULTS

A total of 1650 women with 5251 episodes, 3601 of which were historical and 1650 latest episodes, were included. Altogether, 1000 cases (OAPS group) fulfilled the Sydney classification criteria and 650 (NC-OAPS group) did not. Ten NC-OAPS cases were excluded for presenting thrombosis during follow-up. All cases were classified as category I (triple positivity or double positivity for aPL) or category II (simple positivity). Overall, aPL laboratory categories showed significant differences: 29.20% in OAPS vs 17.96% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category I, and 70.8% in OAPS vs 82% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category II. Significant differences were observed when current obstetric complications were compared (P < 0.001). However, major differences between groups were not observed in treatment rates, livebirths and thrombotic complications. In the NC-OAPS group, 176/640 (27.5%) did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup A), 175/640 (27.34%) had a low titre and/or non-persistent aPL positivity but did meet the clinical criteria (subgroup B) and 289/640 (45.15%) had a high aPL titre but did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup C).

CONCLUSION

Significant clinical and laboratory differences were found between groups. Fetal-maternal outcomes were similar in both groups when treated. These results suggest that we could improve our clinical practice with better understanding of NC-OAPS patients.

Risk factors for pregnancy failure in patients with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and prior pregnancy losses: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the risk factors associated with pregnancy failure in patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and prior pregnancy losses, with or without a diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all the pregnant patients with positive aPL that visited the Peking University Third Hospital on an inpatient or outpatient basis from 2010 to 2019. According to the pregnancy outcome during this study, patients were divided into successful and unsuccessful groups. The clinical characteristics, laboratory tests and treatments were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients were included. 74/105 (70.48 %) patients were in the successful group and 31/105 (29.52 %) patients were in the unsuccessful group. In univariate analysis, the patients with successful pregnancies had a significant prevalence of low-dose aspirin (LDA) prior to pregnancy (P = 0.049) and heparin plus LDA plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and/or steroids (P = 0.037). Triple aPL positivity (P = 0.026), prior pregnancy losses ≥3 (P = 0.036), maternal age at pregnancy ≥35 years (P = 0.001) and no treatment during pregnancy (P < 0.001) were significantly prevalent in patients with unsuccessful pregnancies. In multivariate analysis, prior pregnancy losses ≥3 (P = 0.039; odds ratio (OR) 4.5; 95 %CI 1.3, 14.3), maternal age at pregnancy ≥35 years (P = 0.019; OR 4.3; 95 %CI 1.1, 18.5) and no treatment (P < 0.001; OR 0.03; 95 %CI 0.004, 0.2) were independent risk factors for subsequent pregnancy losses.

CONCLUSION

The risk factors affecting pregnancy outcomes for patients with aPL positivity and prior pregnancy losses included prior pregnancy losses ≥3, maternal age at pregnancy ≥35 years and no treatment during pregnancy.

17β-Estradiol Promotes Proinflammatory and Procoagulatory Phenotype of Innate Immune Cells in the Presence of Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the most common cause of acquired thrombophilia and recurrent spontaneous miscarriages associated with extended persistence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). How circulating aPL and high-17β-estradiol (E2) environment contribute to the pregnancy complications in APS is poorly defined. Therefore, we aimed to analyse whether E2 could be responsible for the immune cell hyperactivation in aPL- positive (lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2-glycoprotein) in women. For this, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from 14 aPL- positive and 13 aPL- negative women were cultured in the presence or absence of E2, LPS or E2+LPS and cell immunophenotype and cytokine release were analysed. In the aPL+ group, E2 presence markedly increased the percentage of NK cells positive for CD69 (p < 0.05), monocytes positive for tissue factor (TF, CD142) (p < 0.05), and B cells expressing PD-L1 (p < 0.05), as well as the elevated production of IL-1β comparing to aPL- women (p < 0.01). Regardless of aPL positivity, E2 augmented the procoagulatory response elicited by LPS in monocytes. Our findings show the ability of E2 to promote proinflammatory and procoagulatory phenotype of innate immune cells in individuals with aPL positivity. Our data highlights the significant impact of female hormones on the activation of immune cells in the presence of aPL.

Anti-phospholipid antibodies and reproductive failures

Anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) recapitulates the link between autoimmunity and pregnancy failure: Acquired anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL) play a pathogenic role in pregnancy complications. The diagnosis of obstetric APS can easily be pursued when women present with laboratory and clinical features fulfilling the international classification criteria. Standard therapeutic approach to obstetric APS consists in the association of anti-platelet agents and anticoagulants. Most patients achieve a live birth thanks to conventional treatment; however, approximately 20% fail to respond and are managed with additional therapeutic tools added on the top of conventional treatment. Surely, a refinement of risk stratification tools would allow early identification of high-risk pregnancies that warrant tailored treatment. In real life, obstetricians and rheumatologists face complex diagnostic scenarios including women with pregnancy morbidities other than those mentioned in classification criteria such as one or two early losses and premature birth after 34 weeks due to preeclampsia or placental insufficiency, women with low-titer aPL not fulfilling criteria laboratory requirements, women with positive non-criteria aPL, asymptomatic aPL carriers, and infertile women found to be aPL-positive. This review focuses on some of the several unanswered questions related to diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic aspects in obstetric APS.

Complementemia in pregnancies with antiphospholipid syndrome

Prognosis of pregnancies in women with antiphospholipid syndrome has dramatically improved over the past two decades using conventional treatment with low molecular weight heparin and low-dose aspirin. However, despite this regimen, 10-15% of antiphospholipid syndrome patients experience pregnancy losses. Several studies have been performed in order to identify risk factors predictive of complications. Thrombosis has been generally accepted as the key pathogenetic mechanism underlying pregnancy morbidity. However, the thrombogenic state alone is not able to explain all the different mechanisms leading to pregnancy failure. In fact, emerging evidence shows that complement pathway could play an important role in mediating clinical events in antiphospholipid syndrome. However, the exact mechanism through which complement mediates antiphospholipid syndrome complications remains unknown. Low complement levels (C3 and C4) are associated with poor pregnancy outcome in women with antiphospholipid syndrome in different studies. Hypocomplementemia could be indicated as an early predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome, available at the beginning of pregnancy for starting, if necessary, additional treatment to conventional therapy. However, future studies need to better understand the impact of low complement level on antiphospholipid syndrome pregnancy outcome.

Triple Antiphospholipid (aPL) Antibodies Positivity Is Associated With Pregnancy Complications in aPL Carriers: A Multicenter Study on 62 Pregnancies

Objective: Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are risk factors for thrombosis and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO). The management of the so called “aPL carriers” (subjects with aPL positivity without the clinical criteria manifestations of APS) is still undefined. This study aims at retrospectively evaluating the outcomes and the factors associated with APO and maternal complications in 62 pregnant aPL carriers.

Methods: Medical records of pregnant women regularly attending the Pregnancy Clinic of 3 Rheumatology centers from January 1994 to December 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with concomitant autoimmune diseases or other causes of pregnancy complications were excluded.

Results: An aPL-related event was recorded in 8 out of 62 patients (12.9%) during pregnancy: 2 thrombosis and 6 APO. At univariate analysis, factors associated with pregnancy complications were acquired risk factors (p:0.008), non-criteria aPL manifestations (p:0.024), lupus-like manifestations (p:0.013), and triple positive aPL profile (p:0.001). At multivariate analysis, only the association with a triple aPL profile was confirmed (p:0.01, OR 21.3, CI 95% 1.84–247). Patients with triple aPL positivity had a higher rate of pregnancy complications, despite they were more frequently receiving combined treatment of low dose aspirin (LDA) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at prophylactic dose.

Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of risk stratification in pregnant aPL carriers, in terms of both immunologic and non-immunologic features. Combination treatment with LDA and LMWH did not prevent APO in some cases, especially in carriers of triple aPL positivity. Triple positive aPL carriers may deserve additional therapeutic strategies during pregnancy.

Management of thrombotic and obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults

Objective

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the European Lmmendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in adults.

Methods

A SLR through January 2018 was performed. Research questions were constructed using the Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. We included data from articles that reported on each relevant intervention. Summary effect estimates were calculated for direct comparison studies that matched the PICO question exactly, and for studies with the relevant intervention and comparator. When meta-analyses were available, we used these estimates.

Results

From 7534 retrieved articles (+15 from hand searches), 188 articles were included in the review. In individuals with high-risk antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) profile without prior thrombotic or obstetric APS, two meta-analyses showed a protective effect of low-dose aspirin (LDA) against thrombosis. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies showed no additional benefit of treatment with vitamin K antagonists at target international normalised ratio (INR) 3–4 versus INR 2–3 in patients with venous thrombosis. In patients with arterial thrombosis, two RCTs and two cohort studies showed no difference in risk of recurrent thrombosis between the two target INR groups. One open-label trial showed higher rates of thrombosis recurrences in triple aPL-positive patients treated with rivaroxaban than those treated with warfarin. RCTs and cohort studies showed that combination treatment with LDA and heparin was more effective than LDA alone in several types of obstetric APS. SLR results were limited by the indirect evidence and the heterogeneity of patient groups for some treatments, and only a few high-quality RCTs.

Conclusion

Well-designed studies of homogeneous APS patient populations are needed.

Antiphospholipid Antibodies Overlapping in Isolated Neurological Syndrome and Multiple Sclerosis: Neurobiological Insights and Diagnostic Challenges

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by arterial and venous thrombosis, pregnancy morbidity and fetal loss caused by pathogenic autoantibodies directed against phospholipids (PL) and PL-cofactors. Isolated neurological APS may represent a significant diagnostic challenge, as epidemiological, clinical and neuroimaging features may overlap with those of multiple sclerosis (MS). In an open view, MS could be considered as an organ-specific anti-lipid (phospholipid and glycosphingolipid associated proteins) disease, in which autoreactive B cells and CD8+ T cells play a dominant role in its pathophysiology. In MS, diverse autoantibodies against the lipid-protein cofactors of the myelin sheath have been described, whose pathophysiologic role has not been fully elucidated. We carried out a review to select clinical studies addressing the prevalence of antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in the so-called MS-like syndrome. The reported prevalence ranged between 2% and 88%, particularly aCL and aβ2GPI, with predominant IgM isotype and suggesting worse MS prognosis. Secondarily, an updated summary of current knowledge on the pathophysiological mechanisms and events responsible for these conditions is presented. We draw attention to the clinical relevance of diagnosing isolated neurological APS. Prompt and accurate diagnosis and antiaggregant and anticoagulant treatment of APS could be vital to prevent or at least reduce APS-related morbidity and mortality.