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

An update on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the ISTH-SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis is dependent on the accurate detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) remain the cornerstone of the laboratory part of APS diagnosis. In the 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) APS classification criteria, the type of laboratory parameters remain essentially unchanged compared with the updated Sapporo classification criteria, and aCL and aβ2GPI measurement are still restricted to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with moderate and high titer aPL thresholds defined as 40 and 80 Units, respectively, and a cutoff calculated by the 99th percentile has been abandoned. We must differentiate between classification criteria and assessment of aPL in clinical care. Classification criteria are strict and meant for participant inclusion in studies and trials to study homogeneous populations of patients. In contrast, laboratory detection for APS diagnosis in daily practice is broader, meant to diagnose each APS patient to optimize their management. Nowadays, there is increasing use of measurement of aPL by methods other than ELISAs , the semiquantitative reporting of titers is a matter of debate, as well as the role of the isotypes immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA, and the role of other aPL, such as antiphosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) antibodies. Patients diagnosed with the disease may or may not fulfill the classification criteria, and inappropriate use of classification criteria may lead to mis(under)diagnosis. The aim of this guidance, based on literature and expert opinion, is to provide guidance recommendations for laboratory workers and clinicians on routine diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected APS.

Antibody profiles in the mosaic of 'seronegative' APS syndrome

Clinical manifestations, as distinct from thrombotic and obstetric morbidity, were recently included in the update of classification criteria of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). However, the existence of several patients with clinical manifestations suggestive of APS, but negative for criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) [anti-cardiolipin antibodies (aCL), anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2-GPI), and lupus anticoagulant] may suggest an update of diagnostic criteria. In this study, we analysed the prevalence of six non-criteria aPLs in a large monocentric cohort of patients with seronegative APS (SN-APS), to investigate their possible diagnostic role. aCL IgA, aβ2-GPI IgA, and aβ2-GPI Domain 1 antibodies were detected by chemiluminescence, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) IgG, anti-vimentin/cardiolipin (aVim/CL) IgG, and anti-carbamylated-β2-glycoprotein I (aCarb-β2-GPI) IgG by ELISA in sera from 144 SN-APS patients. In SN-APS patients, aCL IgA was detected in 4/144 (2.77%), aβ2-GPI IgA in 2/144 (1.39%), aβ2-GPI-Domain 1 in 1/144 (0.69%), aPS/PT in 16/144 (11.11%), aVim/CL in 37/144 (25.69%), and aCarb-β2-GPI in 43/144 patients (29.86%). Patients negative for all non-criteria aPL assays were 77/144 (53.47%). Notably, the Venn diagram showed that aCarb-β2-GPI together with aVim/CL represented the prevalent combination of positive antibodies. In SN-APS patients, aCL IgA were associated with recurrent thrombosis (OR 11.48; P = 0.03); in obstetric SN-APS patients, aPS/PT were significantly associated with foetal deaths (OR 4.84; P = 0.01), aVim/CL with spontaneous abortions (OR 2.71; P = 0.016). This study indicates that aPS/PT, aVim/CL and aCarb-β2-GPI antibodies may represent useful tools to identify 'seronegative' APS patients, who are negative for criteria aPLs, supporting the need to make testing for non-criteria aPLs more accessible in patients with SN-APS.

Thrombosis in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Current Perspectives and Challenges in Laboratory Testing for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis hinges on identifying antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory testing encompasses lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM, which are included in the APS classification criteria. All the assays needed to detect aPL antibodies have methodological concerns. LA testing remains challenging due to its complexity and susceptibility to interference from anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI exhibit discrepancies between different assays. Antibody profiles aid in identifying the patients at risk for thrombosis through integrated interpretation of all positive aPL tests. Antibodies targeting domain I of β2-glycoprotein and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin antibodies have been evaluated for their role in thrombotic APS but are not yet included in the APS criteria. Detecting these antibodies may help patients with incomplete antibody profiles and stratify the risk of APS patients. The added diagnostic value of other methodologies and measurements of other APS-associated antibodies are inconsistent. This manuscript describes laboratory parameters useful in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS and will concentrate on the laboratory aspects, clinical significance of assays, and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of thrombotic APS.

Updates in diagnosis and treatment of pediatric antiphospholipid syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review offers an overview of the most important recent articles on pediatric APS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-thrombotic extra criteria manifestations were prevalent in pediatric APS. Pregnancy morbidity has been described as the first manifestation of APS at youth age, impairing gestational outcomes. The 2023 APS criteria were developed for adult APS patients, and there is still a lack of pediatric-specific APS criteria. Catastrophic APS was more commonly reported as the initial manifestation of pediatric APS than in adults. Regarding treatment, direct oral anticoagulants have been recently approval for pediatric patients with venous thrombosis. New approaches have been proposed for severe cases, for arterial thrombosis, and rituximab for refractory cases. Recurrences typically occurred early and were associated with older age at diagnosis. Current studies highlighted the multifaceted nature of pediatric APS. Further large prospective multicenter studies evaluating new medications capable of reducing recurrence risk and improving prognosis in this population will be required.

Noncriteria antiphospholipid antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by thrombotic manifestations and/or obstetric complications in patients with persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). aPL are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies, but only lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory classification criteria. Seronegative APS patients are usually defined as patients with the clinical symptoms of APS but who test negative for aPL. The negativity to classic aPL criteria does not exclude the presence of other aPL. Several noncriteria aPL have been identified. Some noncriteria aPL are well studied, such as IgA aCL and aβ2GPI, the antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, and the antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI), both latter groups receiving more attention for their role in thrombotic events and pregnancy complications. Other noncriteria aPL that have been studied are antibodies against annexin V, prothrombin, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol, vimentin-cardiolipin complex, anti-protein S/protein C. Measurement of some of these noncriteria aPL (aPS/PT, aDI) is useful in the laboratory work-out of APS in specific situations. We have to differentiate between patients who are positive for noncriteria aPL only, and patients who have both criteria and noncriteria aPL to enable us to study their role in the diagnosis or risk stratification of APS. The research on noncriteria aPL is continually developing as the clinical relevance of these antibodies is not yet fully clarified.

Viewpoint: The value of non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies

In 2006, at a meeting in Sydney, Australia, consensus was reached by an international group of specialists to establish a number of serological criteria that identify patients with a history of thrombosis or pregnancy complications as having antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). These criteria were originally formulated for research purposes and to compare clinical trials in different centres. However, these same criteria are now generally used and accepted for the diagnosis and treatment of patients. The practice of using these criteria for direct patient care requires that these criteria are based on sound scientific evidence. Indeed, for all the autoantibodies that are officially included in the serological criteria, it has been shown that they induce thrombosis and fetal loss when infused into mice. There are also a number of additional autoantibodies that have been identified in these patients but for these antibodies there was not enough evidence to meet the official APS criteria in 2006. Seventeen years have now passed since the consensus meeting, therefore, this review examines whether additional studies performed with these 'non-criteria' autoantibodies have provided sufficient results to suggest the inclusion of these autoantibodies in the official serological criteria of APS.

An Antiphospholipid Antibody Profile as a Biomarker for Thrombophilia in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Despite recent advances in treatment and significant improvements in prognosis, thrombosis remains the major cause of death in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are the main triggers of thrombosis in patients with SLE, with a frequency of approximately 30-40%. Lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin, and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies, which are included in the criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome, and 'non-criteria' aPL such as anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex antibodies, are risk factors for thrombosis in patients with SLE. Multiple positivity for aPL is also associated with an increased risk of thrombosis, and scores calculated from aPL profiles can predict the risk of developing thrombosis. Although there is insufficient evidence for treatment, aPL-positive SLE patients should/may be treated with anticoagulants and/or low-dose aspirin as appropriate. This review summarises the evidence on the clinical significance of the aPL profile as a biomarker of thrombophilia in patients with SLE.

Extra-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with small vessel brain lesions and clinical manifestations associated with antiphospholipid syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Neurological manifestations compatible with small vessel brain lesions (SVBL), such as migraine, cognitive impairment, seizures, and transverse myelitis, may be related to antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and patients could need APS therapies even though they do not fit into thrombosis or obstetric morbidity. Furthermore, extra-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) provide an increase in sensitivity in patients with clinical manifestations related to APS but negative for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI), and lupus anticoagulant, which are the antibodies included in the classification criteria for APS.

METHODS

We determined extra-criteria aPL in 65 SVBL patients with neurological traits and Magnetic Resonance Imaging suggestive of APS but negative for APS classification criteria, 47 of whom were prospectively followed and tested over three years. A group of 95 patients with autoimmune diseases (AD) but without clinical traits of APS was also studied.

RESULTS

A persistent presence of extra-criteria aPL was detected in 27.7% of patients: 12.77% IgM anti- prothrombin (PT), 6.38% IgG anti-PT, 6.38% IgM anti-phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), 4.26% IgA aβ2GPI, 2.13% IgG anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (PS/PT) and 2.13% IgM anti-PS/PT. There was a tendency towards a higher prevalence of these aPL in SVBL patients than in AD - especially for IgA aβ2GPI - and a lack of IgG aPS/PT positivity in the AD group. We found no SVBL patient positive for IgA aCL, IgG anti-PE, annexin V, or aβ2GPI domain I.

CONCLUSIONS

Extra-criteria aPL can improve sensitivity for APS diagnosis in patients with SVBL, especially IgA aβ2GPI and IgG anti-PS/PT antibodies.

The Presence of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies and Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Case-Control Study among Sudanese Patients

Patients infected with COVID-19 are at an increased risk for thrombosis, suggesting a possible role of COVID-19 in the induction of coagulopathy. This study aimed to investigate the presence of prothrombotic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) in the course of COVID-19 infection and to correlate these markers with severity and fatality, suggesting that COVID-19-induced autoimmune thrombosis is a possible axis in the inflammatory circuit of this infection. To investigate this, we conducted a case-control study which included patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test of COVID-19 and a control group with negative COVID-19 PCR and antibody (IgG-IgM and IgA nucleoprotein) ELISA results. An indirect immunofluorescence assay using granulocyte biochips (Aesku slides from AESKU DIAGNOSTICS, Germany) was used to detect ANCA (IgG), as well as multiplex ELISA for the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies for all patients with COVID-19 and for the control group. The results revealed the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (IgG) in one patient out of the 45 patients in the case group. 1/45(2.2%) and 7/45(15.6%) tested positive for ANCA. Five were men and two were females, with one case revealed to be positive for both aPL and ANCA. A cytoplasmic reaction on the eosinophil granulocytes was observed in 2 cases; both were positive for ANCA. Other markers (CRP, APTT, PT, INR, ESR, and neutrophil and lymphocyte counts) were included in the study, along with demographic data. No aPL or ANCA reactions were detected for any of the control groups. These findings suggest that aPL and ANCA may be induced during the course of inflammation in COVID-19 and possibly contribute to the disease's severity and mortality.

Differences in Antiphospholipid Antibody Profile between Patients with Obstetric and Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune condition characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) associated with vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy complications. In a cohort of 74 yet diagnosed APS individuals fulfilling Sydney laboratory criteria (twice positive for lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin, aCL, and/or anti-β2glycoprotein I, aβ2GPI), 33 out of 74 were obstetric APS (OAPS) and 41 thrombotic APS (TAPS) patients. 39% of TAPS patients were women. Although aPL detection was persistent, we observed an oscillatory aPL positivity in 56.7% and a transient seroconversion in 32.4% of APS patients at enrolment. Thus, we tested their sera in a line immunoassay that simultaneously detected IgG or IgM for criteria (aCL and aβ2GPI) and non-criteria (anti-phosphatidylserine, aPS; anti-phosphatidic acid, aPA; anti-phosphatidylinositol, aPI; anti-annexin 5, aA5; anti-prothrombin, aPT; anti-phosphatidylethanolamine; anti-phosphatidylglycerol, and anti-phosphatidylcholine) aPL. OAPS and TAPS patients displayed different but overlapping clusters based on their aPL reactivities. Specifically, while OAPS patients showed higher aPA, aPS, aA5, aβ2GPI and aPT IgM levels than TAPS patients, the latter displayed higher reactivity in aCL, aPI and aA5 IgG. Eventually, with a cut-off of the 99th percentile established from a population of 79 healthy donors, TAPS patients significantly tested more positive for aCL and aA5 IgG than OAPS patients, who tested more positive for aPA, aPS and aβ2GPI IgM. Transiently seronegative APS patients showed non-criteria aPL positivity twice in sera obtained 3 months apart. Overall, our data show that APS patients presented clusters of aPL that define different profiles between OAPS and TAPS, and persistent non-criteria aPL positivity was observed in those who are transiently seronegative.

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.

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.

Detection of IgA Antiphospholipid Antibodies Does not Improve Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification: A two-Center Study

Background

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease; its diagnosis requires meeting both clinical and laboratory criteria. Prevalence rates of immunoglobulin (Ig) A anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and IgA anti-β₂ glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ₂GPI) remain unknown, and the clinical value of these antibodies to APS classification remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to examine both items in the Chinese population.

Methods

Using chemiluminescence immunoassay, antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) were quantified in 12,582 hospital-based general population, 278 thrombotic APS patients, and 233 healthy controls.

Results

In the general population, the positive rates of IgA aCL and IgA aβ₂GPI antibodies were 2.87% and 1.99%, respectively. Furthermore, isolated IgA aPL-positivity rate was 0.72% in patients with APS, which was comparable to those in the general population (0.68%, p = 1) and in healthy controls (0.43%, p = 1). Among the IgA aPL-positive individuals in the general population, isolated IgA-positive individuals had lower serum levels of IgA antibodies (p = 0.007 for IgA aCL and p = 0.059 for IgA aβ₂GPI). Regarding to APS classification, adding IgA aPL into conventional aPL assays may not improve and may even deteriorate the net reclassification index for APS; besides, no association between thrombosis and IgA aPL was observed.

Conclusions

this study assessed the prevalence of various aPL in Chinese population. IgA aPL may not enhance the classification ability of established laboratory criteria for thrombotic APS. Our data do not support the addition of IgA aPL to conventional aPL assays.

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.

Antiphospholipid Antibody Assays in 2021: Looking for a Predictive Value in Addition to a Diagnostic One

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are mandatory for the diagnosis but are also a risk factor for the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) clinical manifestations. Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I (β₂GPI) assays are the formal laboratory classification/diagnostic criteria. Additional nonclassification assays have been suggested; among them, antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) and antidomain 1 β₂GPI antibodies are the most promising ones although not yet formally accepted. aPL represent the example of a laboratory test that moved from dichotomous to quantitative results consistent with the idea that reporting quantitative data offers more diagnostic/prognostic information for both vascular and obstetric manifestations. Although the general rule is that the higher the aPL titer, the higher the test likelihood ratio, there is growing evidence that this is not the case for persistent low titers and obstetric events. LA displays the highest diagnostic/prognostic power, although some isolated LAs are apparently not associated with APS manifestations. Moreover, isotype characterization is also critical since IgG aPL are more diagnostic/prognostic than IgA or IgM. aPL are directed against two main autoantigens: β₂GPI and PT. However, anti-β₂GPI antibodies are more associated with the APS clinical spectrum. In addition, there is evidence that anti-β₂GPI domain 1 antibodies display a stronger diagnostic/prognostic value. This finding supports the view that antigen and even epitope characterization represents a further step for improving the assay value. The strategy to improve aPL laboratory characterization is a lesson that can be translated to other autoantibody assays in order to improve our diagnostic and prognostic power.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the International Guidelines

Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) requires long-term anticoagulation to prevent recurrent thrombosis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly used in APS patients, but contradictory guidelines recommendations on their use do exist. We performed a systematic review of literature including studies investigating the role of DOACs in APS patients. At this aim, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines. We identified 14 studies which investigated the use of DOACs in patients with APS, of which 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 1 post-hoc analysis of 3 RCTs, 7 case series and 3 cohort studies (2 prospective and 1 retrospective). Among DOACs, rivaroxaban was the most used (n = 531), followed by dabigatran (n = 90) and apixaban (n = 46). Regarding guidelines indications, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines recommend against the use of DOACs in all APS patients. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), British Society for Haematology (BSH), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidance provided more detailed indications stating that warfarin should be the first-choice treatment but DOACs may be considered in patients (1) already on a stable anticoagulation with a DOAC, (2) with low-quality anticoagulation by warfarin, (3) unwilling/unable to undergo INR monitoring, (4) with contraindications or serious adverse events under warfarin. Patients with arterial APS or triple positivity should be treated with warfarin while venous APS with single or double positivity may be candidate to DOACs, but high-quality studies are needed.

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).

Pediatric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: from Pathogenesis to Clinical Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elucidating the pathogenic mechanisms mediated by antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) might exert important clinical implications in pediatric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

RECENT FINDINGS

aPL are traditionally regarded as the main pathogenic players in APS, inducing thrombosis via the interaction with fluid-phase and cellular components of coagulation. Recent APS research has focused on the role of β2 glycoprotein I, which bridges innate immunity and coagulation. In pediatric populations, aPL should be screened in appropriate clinical settings, such as thrombosis, multiple-organ dysfunction, or concomitant systemic autoimmune diseases. Children positive for aPL tests often present non-thrombotic non-criteria manifestations or asymptomatic aPL positivity. In utero aPL exposure has been suggested to result in developmental disabilities, warranting long-term follow-up. The knowledge of the multifaceted nature of pediatric APS should be implemented to reduce the risk of underdiagnosing/undertreating this condition. Hopefully, recent pathogenic insights will open new windows of opportunity in the management of pediatric APS.

Development of a New International Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria Phase I/II Report: Generation and Reduction of Candidate Criteria

OBJECTIVE

An international multidisciplinary initiative, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, is underway to develop new rigorous classification criteria to identify patients with high likelihood of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) for research purposes. The present study was undertaken to apply an evidence- and consensus-based approach to identify candidate criteria and develop a hierarchical organization of criteria within domains.

METHODS

During phase I, the APS classification criteria steering committee used systematic literature reviews and surveys of international APS physician scientists to generate a comprehensive list of items related to APS. In phase II, we reviewed the literature, administered surveys, formed domain subcommittees, and used Delphi exercises and nominal group technique to reduce potential APS candidate criteria. Candidate criteria were hierarchically organized into clinical and laboratory domains.

RESULTS

Phase I generated 152 candidate criteria, expanded to 261 items with the addition of subgroups and candidate criteria with potential negative weights. Using iterative item reduction techniques in phase II, we initially reduced these items to 64 potential candidate criteria organized into 10 clinical and laboratory domains. Subsequent item reduction methods resulted in 27 candidate criteria, hierarchically organized into 6 additive domains (laboratory, macrovascular, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac, and hematologic) for APS classification.

CONCLUSION

Using data- and consensus-driven methodology, we identified 27 APS candidate criteria in 6 clinical or laboratory domains. In the next phase, the proposed candidate criteria will be used for real-world case collection and further refined, organized, and weighted to determine an aggregate score and threshold for APS classification.