Detection of Anti-Cardiolipin and Anti-β2glycoprotein I Antibodies Differs between Platforms without Influence on Association with Clinical Symptoms

Reporting and Establishment of Reference Intervals for Antiphospholipid Antibody Immunoassays: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program

CONTEXT.—

Misdiagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome can occur owing to the wide diversity of antiphospholipid (aPL) assays and a lack of international calibrators and harmonized reference intervals.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess laboratory practices regarding reporting and establishing reference intervals for immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) assays.

DESIGN.—

Supplemental questions related to reporting and establishing reference ranges for aPL assays were sent as part of the Antiphospholipid Antibody (ACL)-B 2019 College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing survey. The response rate and methods assessment details were determined, as well as qualitative and quantitative results for 3 test samples.

RESULTS.—

The number of participants reporting results for IgG aCL (n = 489), IgM aCL (n = 476), IgG anti-β2GPI (n = 354), and IgM anti-β2GPI (n = 331) varied by antibody type. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (up to 58.6%, 260 of 444) was the most used method; others included multiplex (from 18.9% to 23.9%), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (14.4%-17.6%), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (6.5%-9.0%). More respondents reported quantitative than qualitative results, and manufacturer cutoff ranges were used by 92.9% and 94.2% of respondents for aCL and anti-β2GPI, respectively. Despite variation in the use of semiquantitative ranges, qualitative negative/positive reporting of the test samples achieved almost 100% consensus. Qualitative consensus was met in contrast to the wide range of quantitative results obtained for each analyte across different kits.

CONCLUSIONS.—

ELISA remains the most used method for detecting aPL antibodies, with most laboratories reporting quantitative results based on manufacturers' suggested reference ranges. The categorization of quantitative results as equivocal, weak positive, or positive for responders using kits from the same manufacturer was variable.

A thrombin-driven neural net diagnoses the antiphospholipid syndrome without the need for interruption of anticoagulation

ABSTRACT

Thrombosis is an important manifestation of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The thrombin generation (TG) test is a global hemostasis assay, and increased TG is associated with thrombosis. APS is currently diagnosed based on clinical and laboratory criteria, the latter defined as anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). APS testing is often performed after a thrombotic episode and subsequent administration of anticoagulation, which might hamper the interpretation of clotting assays used for LA testing. We set out to develop an artificial neural network (NN) that can diagnose APS in patients who underwent vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, based on TG test results. Five NNs were trained to diagnose APS in 48 VKA-treated patients with APS and 64 VKA-treated controls, using TG and thrombin dynamics parameters as inputs. The 2 best-performing NNs were selected (accuracy, 96%; sensitivity, 96%-98%; and specificity, 95%-97%) and further validated in an independent cohort of VKA-anticoagulated patients with APS (n = 33) and controls (n = 62). Independent clinical validation favored 1 of the 2 selected NNs, with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 94% for the diagnosis of APS. In conclusion, the combined use of TG and NN methodology allowed for us to develop an NN that diagnoses APS with an accuracy of 92% in individuals with VKA anticoagulation (n = 95). After further clinical validation, the NN could serve as a screening and diagnostic tool for patients with thrombosis, especially because there is no need to interrupt anticoagulant therapy.

Quantification of Antiphospholipid Antibodies: The Importance of Using an Appropriate Methodology for Each Clinical Profile

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) is associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), characterized by thrombosis and obstetric morbidity. aPLs included in APS classification criteria are lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta-2-glycoprotein-I of IgG or IgM isotypes. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is the most used diagnostic technique to determine aPLs. Recently, new automated technologies mainly based in antigen-coated beads have been developed. The aim is to compare a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (M1) and an antigen-coated bead assay (M2) in obstetric and thrombotic APS patients. All samples from the first 1020 patients received in the Immune Service Laboratory (Hospital 12 de Octubre) during the recruitment period, without exclusions, were analysed for aPLs. The weighted kappa for both methods in all the patients was 0.39 (0.30-0.47). Agreement increased to 0.56 (0.38-0.73) in patients with autoimmune disease. Sensitivity and specificity obtained for M1 were 17.1% and 89.3%, respectively, and 12.7% and 91.4% for M2. The sensibility and specificity of IgG isotypes were higher than the IgM ones. Regarding obstetric patients, M1 obtained significant diagnostic performance and had more sensitivity 23.75 (14.95-34.58) compared to M2 12.50 (6.16-21.79). In conclusion, clinical suspicion-based method selection for aPLs should be considered. To identify obstetric APS patients, solid phase methods remain more preferable.

How to diagnose and manage antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are autoimmune antibodies directed toward phospholipids or phospholipid-protein complexes, particularly those containing β2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI). Persistently positive aPL accompanied by arterial or venous thrombosis, or recurrent pregnancy loss, constitutes the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Several types of aPL with different specificities have been defined and may be detected in the clinical lab, including lupus anticoagulants (detected using clotting assays) and anticardiolipin, anti-β2GPI and anti-prothrombin/phosphatidylserine antibodies (detected by ELISA); each of the last 3 aPL may be either IgG, IgM, or IgA, though IgA antibodies are not included in criteria for APS. Due to the relative rarity of APS and the heterogeneity of aPL, thrombosis risk stratification is challenging, and randomized clinical trials for thrombosis treatment and prevention have been limited. This lack of high-quality data has made the clinical management of APS difficult, and existing guidelines are few and could not possibly cover many of the scenarios encountered in managing patients with APS. In this review, we present 3 patients with aPL and/or APS who highlight treatment dilemmas, and we discuss background information that may help guide clinical judgment in developing individualized treatment plans for patients with these enigmatic antibodies.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

The added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) in the diagnostic workup of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unclear. Currently, diagnosis of thrombotic APS (TAPS) and obstetric APS (OAPS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM, or anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in OAPS.

METHODS

aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 653 patients (OAPS, TAPS, and controls). In-house aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, titers and prevalence were compared between OAPS, TAPS, and controls and type of pregnancy morbidity. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated.

RESULTS

In OAPS, aPS/PT IgG and IgM showed an OR of 4.32 (95% CI, 2.54-7.36) and 3.37 (95% CI, 1.93-5.89), respectively, but the association was not independent of LAC. Prevalence and titers of aPS/PT IgG and IgM were lower in OAPS than in patients with TAPS. aPS/PT were more prevalent and showed higher titers in patients with late pregnancy loss than in patients with early pregnancy loss with a positivity of 86.4% and 39.3%, respectively. Higher aPS/PT titers did not increase the likelihood of having OAPS.

CONCLUSION

The added value of aPS/PT testing in the current diagnostic workup of OAPS seems limited compared with LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI. aPS/PT might be useful in specific subsets of patients with OAPS. However, future multicentric studies are needed to elucidate the risk of less frequent and most severe obstetrical manifestations.

Application of the thrombin generation assay in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review of the literature

Background

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is classified by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and thrombotic and/or adverse obstetric outcomes. The diagnosis and risk assessment of APS is challenging. This systematic review investigated if the thrombin generation (TG) assay could be helpful for APS diagnosis and risk assessment.

Methods

A systemic review was performed by searching two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) until March 31, 2022, using a search strategy with two concepts: APS and TG, and related keywords. Two reviewers independently screened the articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were performed independently. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines were followed for data synthesis reporting.

Results

Fourteen studies with 677 APS and 1,349 control subjects were included with variable quality according to the NOS. Twelve studies measured TG via the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) method using a fluorogenic substrate, whereas two used a chromogenic substrate-based TG assay. One study compared the CAT assay to the fully-automated ST Genesia® (Stago, France). Two studies initiated TG using platelet-rich plasma, whereas the rest of the studies used platelet-poor plasma. Resistance to activated protein C (aPC) was examined in ten studies. They reported a significant increase in aPC-resistance in APS patients compared to healthy controls, aPL-carriers, and thrombotic controls. Based on two studies, the prevalence of aPC-resistance was higher in APS patients compared to healthy controls and thrombotic controls with odds ratios of 5.9 and 6.8–12.8, respectively (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant difference in aPC-resistance was found between APS patients and autoimmune disease controls. Furthermore, 7/14 studies reported TG-parameters including peak height, endogenous thrombin potential, lag time, and time to peak, but these outcomes were highly variable between studies. Furthermore, TG methodology between studies differed greatly, impacting the comparability of the studies.

Conclusion

aPC-resistance measured with TG was increased in APS patients compared to healthy and thrombotic controls, but the diagnostic and prognostic value is unclear compared to current diagnostic strategies. Studies of other TG-parameters were heterogeneous and more research is needed to identify their potential added value in APS diagnosis.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022308363

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Antibodies Toward the Domain I of Beta2-Glycoprotein I (aDI)

Anti-β2GPI antibodies (aβ2GPI) are one of the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), along with lupus anticoagulant (LA) and anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL). A subset of the aβ2GPI are the antibodies directed toward the domain I of the β2GPI (aDI). The aDI are regarded as non-criteria aPL and are among the most studied non-criteria aPL. Antibodies directed against a specific epitope in the domain I (G40-R43) of β2GPI were shown to be strongly correlated with thrombotic and obstetric events in APS. Many studies illustrated the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies, although with various results, depending on the assay used. The first studies were performed with an in-house ELISA with high specificity for aDI toward the G40-R43 epitope. More recently, a commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay for aDI IgG became obtainable for diagnostic laboratories. Although the added value of aDI on top of the criteria aPL is not clear, with opposing findings in literature, the assay might help in the diagnosis of APS, identifying the patients at risk since aDI are frequently present with high titers in triple-positive patients (positive for LA, aβ2GPI, and aCL). aDI can be used as a confirmatory test and is useful for proving the specificity of the aβ2GPI antibodies. In this chapter, the procedure for detecting these antibodies is outlined, using an automated chemiluminescence assay which can be used to determine the presence of IgG aDI in human samples. General guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aDI assay are also provided.

Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing for Anti-cardiolipin and Anti-β2 Glycoprotein I Antibodies Using Chemiluminescence-Based Panels

Antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS) is a prothrombotic condition with increased risk for thrombosis and pregnancy-related morbidity. In addition to clinical criteria related to these risks, APS is characterized by the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), as detected in the laboratory using a potentially wide variety of assays. The three APS criteria-related assays are lupus anticoagulant (LA), as detected using clot-based assays, and the solid-phase assays of anti-cardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI), with immunoglobulin subclasses of IgG and/or IgM. These tests may also be used for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In particular, APS diagnosis/exclusion remains challenging for clinicians and laboratories because of the heterogeneity of clinical presentations in those being evaluated and the technical application and variety of the associated tests used in laboratories. Although LA testing is affected by a wide variety of anticoagulants, which are often given to APS patients to prevent any associated clinical morbidity, detection of solid-phase aPL is not influenced by these anticoagulants, and this thus represents a potential advantage to their application. On the other hand, various technical issues challenge accurate laboratory detection or exclusion of aPL. This report describes protocols for the assessment of solid-phase aPL, specifically aCL and aβ2GPI of IgG and IgM class by means of a chemiluminescence-based assay panel. These protocols reflect tests able to be performed on the AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory). Certain regional approvals may also allow this testing to be performed on a BIO-FLASH instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory).

Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Pregnancy: Maternal and Neonatal Implications

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL Abs) have long been associated with the occurrence of certain specific pregnancy morbidities, affecting both mother and fetus. Antithrombotic-based prophylactic regimens are the standard of care. Their intensity is modulated by the thrombotic history and has greatly improved the prognosis related to spontaneous morbidity. Observational studies show that this treatment is still associated with the persistence of excess of late-pregnancy placental diseases, calling for new or complementary developments, yet to be validated. Rigorous prospective multicentric validation of clinical and laboratory parameters capable of identifying those women and fetuses at a risk of pejorative evolution, thus early prognosis, is a priority issue. These will make it possible to develop customized treatments and test them. Furthermore, there are still concerns, particularly neurodevelopmental ones, about children born to aPL Ab-positive mothers, and clarification based on regular, more systematic evaluations is required. Even after pregnancy, women with a pure obstetrical antiphospholipid syndrome are at a greater risk of venous and arterial thrombosis over time, and prevention needs to be improved. These women also appear to develop more psychiatric and mood disorders. Central nervous system imaging using high-resolution techniques has shown subtle impairments in the white matter, associated with the most pathogenic aPL Abs and the clinical significance of this is under investigation. These mothers also seem to develop an excess of cancers. The systemic impact of aPL Abs is gradually being suspected, although this requires further evidence, and prevention should be envisaged.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, or anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies. Other antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are promising in assessment of thrombotic APS (TAPS).

AIM

To evaluate the added value of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in TAPS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 757 patients (TAPS and controls). aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, and aPS/PT titers and positivity were compared between TAPS and controls, type of thrombosis, and antibody profiles. Likelihood ratios (LR), odds ratios (OR), and aPL score were determined.

RESULTS

aPS/PT IgG and IgM were associated with TAPS and triple positivity. In-house calculated cut-offs were higher for IgM (43 units), compared to manufacturer's cut-off (30 units). Thresholds of 90 (IgG) and 200 (IgM) units were determined as high-titer cut-off. Higher aPS/PT titers were observed in triple positive patients and showed higher LR and OR for TAPS. aPS/PT was independently associated with TAPS when adjusted for aCL/aβ2GPI, but not when adjusted for LAC. In isolated LAC positive patients, aPS/PT was positive in 27.1% TAPS patients and in 77.3% patients with autoimmune disease. Diagnostic value of aPL score did not differ with and without including aPS/PT.

CONCLUSION

aPS/PT positivity, especially with high antibody titer, is associated with TAPS diagnosis. Analysis on top of current laboratory criteria is not essential in TAPS diagnosis, but aPS/PT could be useful in patients with thrombosis and a double positive aPL profile (aCL+/aβ2GPI+).

Persistent Antiphospholipid Antibodies Are Not Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort of Hospitalised Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Objective

Patients with COVID-19 presented with an elevated prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) but the relationship with thrombosis is controversial. We analysed the persistence of aPL and their association with the clinical outcomes during hospitalisation in a cohort of COVID-19 patients.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective study including consecutive hospitalised patients with COVID-19 from Hospital Clínic of Barcelona between March 28th and April 22nd, 2020. Clinical outcomes during hospitalisation were thrombosis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and severe ventilatory failure. We determined both criteria and non-criteria aPL. Of note, in those patients with a positive result in the first determination, a second sample separated by at least 12 weeks was drawn to test the persistence of aPL.

Results

One hundred and fifty-eight patients (59.5% men) with a mean age of 61.4 ± 14.9 years old were included. Thrombosis was present in 28 (17.7%) patients, severe respiratory failure in 47 (30.5%), and 30 (18.9%) patients were admitted to ICU. Sixteen (28.6%) patients were positive for the criteria aPL at both determinations and only two (3.6%) of them suffered from thrombosis during hospitalisations (both had aCL IgG). However, they presented with low titers of aCL. Of note, aPL were not related to thrombosis, ICU admission or severe respiratory failure.

Conclusion

Although aPL were prevalent in our cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and they were persistent in half of tested patients, most determinations were at low titers and they were not related to worse clinical outcomes.

Solid Phase Assays for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are the laboratory criteria if persistently present over time. As aCL and aβ2GPI are two out of the three laboratory criteria, the detection of aPL by solid phase assays is an essential step in the diagnosis of APS. Advancement has been made to resolve some of the methodological challenges of aCL and aβ2GPI assays by providing guidelines how to measure aPL, as well as to gain a better understanding of their diagnostic role. However, solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show substantive inter-assay differences, resulting in disagreement concerning positive/negative results, but also differences in titer of antibodies. This hampers the semiquantitative classification into low-medium-high positivity. The non-criteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain one of β2GPI and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) have roles in confirming the risk in APS, and can be useful, especially in patients with incomplete antibody profiles.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.

Semiquantitative interpretation of anticardiolipin and antiβ2glycoprotein I antibodies measured with various analytical platforms: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms.

AIM

To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated.

RESULTS

Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM.

CONCLUSION

Use of 40/80 units as medium/high thresholds is acceptable for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG ELISA, but not for CLIA and MFI. Alternative semiquantitative thresholds for non-ELISA platforms can be determined by a clinical approach or by using monoclonal antibodies. Semiquantitative reporting of aPL IgM has less impact on increasing probability for APS.

Role of antiphospholipid antibodies in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria, if persistently present. LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. Because of the methodological shortcomings of immunological and clotting assays, these non-criteria aPL may be useful in patients with incomplete antibody profiles to confirm or exclude the increased risk profile. This manuscript will focus on the laboratory aspects, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

•

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) define the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

•

Laboratory criteria are lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM.

•

Lupus anticoagulant measurement, as well as solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI, show methodological challenges.

•

Antibodies against domain I of β2GPI (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies are non-criteria aPL.

•

aDI and aPS/PT may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients.

Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort

Background

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is based on the positivity of laboratory criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Test results for aPLs could be contradictory among different detection methods as well as commercial manufacturers. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic and analytic performances of four commercial assays prevalently used in China.

Methods

A total of 313 patients including 100 patients diagnosed with primary APS, 52 with APS secondary to SLE, 71 with SLE, and 90 health controls were recruited. Serum IgG, IgM, and IgA for aCL, and aβ2GPI antibodies were detected with two ELISA and two CLIA systems, and test system with the best diagnostic value was explored of its correlation with key clinical features.

Results

CLIA by YHLO Biotech Co. was considered as the system with the best predictive power, where 58.55 and 57.89% of APS patients were positive for aCL or aβ2GPI for at least one antibody (IgG or IgM or IgA). Overall, CLIA showed better performance characteristics than traditional ELISA test systems.

Conclusion

CLIA was considered as a better platform for aPL detection in APS diagnosis. A combination of other detection platforms could assist in differential diagnosis as well as in identifying high-risk patients.

Deciphered coagulation profile to diagnose the antiphospholipid syndrome using artificial intelligence

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is diagnosed by the presence of lupus anticoagulant and/or antibodies against cardiolipin or β₂-glycoprotein-1 and the occurrence of thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity. The assessment of overall coagulation is known to differ in APS patients compared to normal subjects. The accelerated production of key factor thrombin causes a prothrombotic state in APS patients, and the reduced efficacy of the activated protein C pathway promotes this effect. Even though significant differences exist in the coagulation profile between normal controls and APS patients, it is not possible to rely on a single test result to diagnose APS. A neural network is a computing system inspired by the human brain that can be trained to distinguish between healthy subjects and patients based on subject specific data. In a first cohort of patients, we developed a neural networking that diagnoses APS. We clinically validated this neural network in a separate cohort consisting of APS patients, normal controls, controls visiting the hospital for other indications and two diseased control groups (thrombosis patients and auto-immune disease patients). The positive predictive value ranged from 62% in the hospital controls to 91% in normal controls and the negative predictive value of the neural network ranged from 86% in the thrombosis control group to 95% in the hospital controls. The sensitivity of the neural network was higher than 90% in all control groups. In conclusion, we developed a neural network that accurately diagnoses APS in the validation cohort. After further clinical validation in newly diagnosed patients, this neural network could possibly be clinically implemented to diagnose APS based on thrombin generation data.

Current Promising Biomarkers and Methods in the Diagnostics of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Review

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a hypercoagulation condition associated with the incidence of heterogenic antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs), which non-specifically affect hemostasis processes. APS is clinically manifested by recurrent arterial and venous thromboses and reproduction losses. The aPL antibodies, which may induce clinical manifestations of APS, include criteria antibodies anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2-glycoprotein-I, and lupus anticoagulant, but also non-criteria antibodies, for example anti-β2-glycoprotein-I domain I, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin, anti-annexin V, and many others. APS occurs mostly in patients of younger and middle age, most frequently in females. Laboratory diagnostics of APS are quite difficult, as they include a wide spectrum of examining methods, which are based on various principles of detection and are performed using various laboratory techniques. The objective of the review is to describe the current state of potentially examined biomarkers and methods in APS diagnostics. The aforementioned biomarkers are lupus anticoagulant, anti-β2-glycoprotein-I, anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2-glycoprotein-I domain I, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin, anti-β2-glycoprotein-I IgA, anti-cardiolipin IgA, anti-annexin V and II, anti-prothrombin, anti-cardiolipin/vimentin, anti-protein S/protein C, and antibodies against phospholipid antigens for whose diagnostics we may use some of the methods established for a long time and some of the modern methods—the coagulation method for the determination of lupus anticoagulant (LA), enzyme-linked imunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence analysis (CLIA), multiplex fluorescence flow immunoassay (MFFIA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (EliA), line immunoassay (LIA), multiline dot assay (MLDA), and thin-layer chromatography (TLC). Conclusion: Antibodies against phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol, cardiolipin/vimentin complex, and annexin V are currently the most studied new markers. However, these assays have not been standardized until now, both from the laboratory and clinical point of view. In this review we summarize the evidence of the most studied aPL markers and their potential clinical significance in seronegative APS (SN-APS).

Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria if persistently present. Progress has been made on the standardization of tests as guidelines on LAC testing and immunological assays for aCL and aβ2GPI are published. However, LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Noncriteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. But, aDI and aPS/PT are not included in the current diagnostic criteria and testing in daily practice is not recommended as these antibodies have no added value in the diagnosis of APS. This review will focus on the technical aspects of the laboratory methods, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

Clinical Relevance of Isolated Lupus Anticoagulant Positivity in Patients with Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Background Patients positive for all three types of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs; triple positivity) have been identified for having a high risk for thrombotic events. However, the clinical significance of isolated lupus anticoagulant (LAC) positivity is debated.

Objectives To investigate the clinical relevance of isolated LAC.

Methods A total of 456 patients were enrolled in this study; 66 antiphospholipid syndrome patients and 390 control patients. The control group consisted of autoimmune patients (n = 91), patients with thrombosis but without aPLs (n = 127), and normal controls (n = 172). LAC, anticardiolipin (anti-CL), and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) were determined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines. Anti-CL and anti-β2GPI were measured by four different solid-phase platforms to overcome variability between test systems. The noncriteria IgA anti-CL and anti-β2GPI, antidomain I of β2GPI IgG, and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (anti-PS/PT) IgG and IgM were detected according to the ISTH guidelines for solid-phase assays.

Results In total, 70 patients were positive for LAC, of which 44 were negative for both anti-β2GPI and anti-CL antibodies. We found that isolated LAC proved to be strongly associated with vascular thrombosis (odds ratio [OR]: 7.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.3–16.1), even better than triple-positive samples (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.6–12.2). The titers of the anti-PS/PT IgG and IgM were significantly higher in triple-positivity samples compared with samples with isolated LAC positivity. The majority of single LAC positives were anti-PS/PT-negative. We observed that LAC positivity was weaker in isolated LAC-positive patients compared with LAC activity in triple-positive patients.

Conclusion Isolated LAC was highly associated with thrombosis. The presence of anti-PS/PT antibodies could not explain LAC positivity in isolated LAC. Isolated LAC showed a weaker LAC activity compared with triple-positive patients.

The Weight of IgA Anti-β2glycoprotein I in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome Pathogenesis: Closing the Gap of Seronegative Antiphospholipid Syndrome

The specific value of IgA Anti-β2glycoprotein I antibodies (aB2GP1) in the diagnosis and management of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is still controversial and a matter of active debate. The relevance of the IgA aB2GP1 isotype in the pathophysiology of APS has been increasingly studied in the last years. There is well know that subjects with multiple positive APS tests are at increased risk of thrombosis and/or miscarriage. However, these antibodies are not included in the 2006 APS classification criteria. Since 2010 the task force of the Galveston International Congress on APS recommends testing IgA aB2GP1 isotype in patients with APS clinical criteria in the absence of criteria antibodies. In this review, we summarize the molecular and clinical “state of the art” of the IgA aB2GP in the context of APS. We also discuss some of the characteristics that may help to evaluate the real value of the IgA aB2GP1 determination in basic research and clinical practice. The scientific community should be aware of the importance of clarifying the role of IgA aB2GP1 in the APS diagnosis.

Comparison of different immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against Intrinsic Factor and Parietal Cells

OBJECTIVES

In the diagnostic work up of autoimmune gastritis several immunological methods are available for the detection of antibodies against Intrinsic Factor (IF) and Parietal Cells (PC). However, there are no recent reports directly comparing all the available assays and methods. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of several commercially available anti-IF and anti-PC antibody assays from different manufacturers in a multi-center multi-cohort setting.

METHODS

Sera were used from 5 different cohorts consisting of samples from 25 healthy elderly, 20 HCV or HIV positive patients and 150 patients positive for anti-IF or anti-PC antibodies or in whom these antibodies were requested. These cohorts were tested for anti-IF antibodies with 6 different assays (IIF, ELISA, DIA and EliA) and for anti-PC antibodies with 7 different assays (IIF, ELISA, DIA and EliA). Performance was evaluated by calculating the concordance and relative sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Good concordance was found between the assays for both antibody specificities, ranging from 81 to 100% and 91-100% for anti-IF and anti-PC antibodies, respectively. Highest relative sensitivity was found with the (automated) ELISA based methods. However, all assays had a relative sensitivity between 85 and 100% for anti-IF antibodies and between 95 and 100% for anti-PC antibodies. The relative specificity ranged between 76 and 100% for anti-IF antibodies and between 96 and 100% for anti-PC antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that most assays perform well and are concordant to each other, despite the methodological differences and the different sources of antigen used. However, the method used affects the sensitivity and specificity. The (automated) ELISA based assays have the highest relative sensitivity and relative specificity. Care should be taken in the interpretation of positive results by IIF and negative results by the Blue Diver when testing for anti-IF antibodies.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with COVID-19: A relevant observation?

BACKGROUND

High incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients indicates a hypercoagulable state. Hence, exploring the involvement of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in these patients is of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the incidence of criteria (lupus anticoagulant [LAC], anticardiolipin [aCL] immunoglobulin G [IgG]/IgM, antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies [aβ2GPI] IgG/IgM) and noncriteria (anti-phosphatidyl serine/prothrombin [aPS/PT], aCL, and aβ2GPI IgA) aPL in a consecutive cohort of critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, their association with thrombosis, antibody profile and titers of aPL.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Thirty-one consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit were included. aPL were measured at one time point, with part of the aPL-positive patients retested after 1 month.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were single LAC-positive, two triple-positive, one double-positive, one single aCL, and three aCL IgG and LAC positive. Seven of nine thrombotic patients had at least one aPL. Sixteen of 22 patients without thrombosis were aPL positive, amongst them two triple positives. Nine of 10 retested LAC-positive patients were negative on a second occasion, as well as the double-positive patient. Seven patients were aPS/PT-positive associated to LAC. Three patients were aCL and aβ2GPI IgA-positive.

CONCLUSION

Our observations support the frequent single LAC positivity during (acute phase) observed in COVID-19 infection; however, not clearly related to thrombotic complications. Triple aPL positivity and high aCL/aβ2GPI titers are rare. Repeat testing suggests aPL to be mostly transient. Further studies and international registration of aPL should improve understanding the role of aPL in thrombotic COVID-19 patients.

Is There an Additional Value in Detecting Anticardiolipin and Anti-β2 glycoprotein I IgA Antibodies in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome?

BACKGROUND

 Anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) immunoglobulin A (IgA) antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) have shown to associate with thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. However, inclusion of IgA aPL in the classification criteria of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) has been debated. We investigated the value of aCL and aβ2GPI IgA aPL in the detection of thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity in addition to the current aPL panel for APS.

METHODS

 We included 1,068 patients from eight European medical centers: 259 thrombotic APS patients, 122 obstetric APS patients, 204 non-APS thrombosis patients, 33 non-APS obstetric patients, 60 APS patients with unspecified clinical manifestations, 196 patients with autoimmune diseases, and 194 controls. aCL and aβ2GPI IgG/M/A were detected with four commercial assays and lupus anticoagulant was determined by the local center.

RESULTS

 Positivity for IgA aPL was found in 17 to 26% of the patients with clinical manifestations of APS and in 6 to 13% of the control population. Both aCL and aβ2GPI IgA were significantly associated with thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. Isolated IgA positivity was rare in patients with clinical manifestations of APS (0.3-5%) and not associated with thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. Addition of IgA to the current criterion panel did not increase odds ratios for thrombosis nor pregnancy morbidity.

CONCLUSION

 aCL and aβ2GPI IgA are associated with clinical manifestations of APS. However, isolated IgA positivity was rare and not associated with thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity. These data do not support testing for aCL and aβ2GPI IgA subsequent to conventional aPL assays in identifying patients with thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity.

How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on the laboratory tests necessary for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). For the interpretation of the results of the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), understanding of all pitfalls and interferences is necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made on the standardization of aPL tests and current guidelines for detection of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) are useful tools. LAC measurement remains a complex procedure with many pitfalls and interference by anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show inter-assay differences. Measuring LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI allows making antibody profiles that help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients, but are not included in the current diagnostic criteria as no added value in the diagnosis of APS has been illustrated so far. The laboratory diagnosis of APS remains challenging. LAC, aCL, aβ2GPI IgG, and IgM should be performed to increase diagnostic efficacy, with an integrated interpretation of all results and an interpretative comment. A close interaction between clinical pathologists and clinicians is mandatory.

Detection of anti-domain I antibodies by chemiluminescence enables the identification of high-risk antiphospholipid syndrome patients: A multicenter multiplatform study

BACKGROUND

Classification of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies predominantly on detecting antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Antibodies against a domain I (DI) epitope of anti-β2glycoprotein I (β2GPI) proved to be pathogenic, but are not included in the current classification criteria.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the clinical value of detecting anti-DI IgG in APS.

PATIENTS/METHODS

From eight European centers 1005 patients were enrolled. Anti-cardiolipin (CL) and anti-β2GPI were detected by four commercially available solid phase assays; anti-DI IgG by the QUANTA Flash® β2GPI domain I assay.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (ORs) of anti-DI IgG for thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity proved to be higher than those of the conventional assays. Upon restriction to patients positive for anti-β2GPI IgG, anti-DI IgG positivity still resulted in significant ORs. When anti-DI IgG was added to the criteria aPLs or used as a substitute for anti-β2GPI IgG/anti-CL IgG, ORs for clinical symptoms hardly improved. Upon removing anti-DI positive patients, lupus anticoagulant remained significantly correlated with clinical complications. Anti-DI IgG are mainly present in high-risk triple positive patients, showing higher levels. Combined anti-DI and triple positivity confers a higher risk for clinical symptoms compared to only triple positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of anti-DI IgG resulted in higher ORs for clinical manifestations than the current APS classification criteria. Regardless of the platform used to detect anti-β2GPI/anti-CL, addition of anti-DI IgG measured by QUANTA Flash® did not improve the clinical associations, possibly due to reduced exposure of the pathogenic epitope of DI. Our results demonstrate that anti-DI IgG potentially helps in identifying high-risk patients.