Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

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.

Insight into antiphospholipid syndrome: the role and clinical utility of neutrophils extracellular traps formation

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APLS) is a systemic immune dysregulation distinguished by repetitive complications and pregnancy loss in the absence of definite etiology. Most research focuses on the laboratory detection and clinical features of APLS, but its precise etiology remains to be deeply explored. NETosis is a newly developed theory in the pathophysiology of APLS which may serve as the missing bridge between coagulation and inflammation reaching the disease progression and severity. We aimed in this study to navigate the prognostic role of NETosis in thrombotic APLS. Our study included 49 newly diagnosed APLS patients (both 1ry and 2ry) who met clinical and laboratory criteria as per the international consensus statement on the update of the classification criteria for definite APLS and were sub-classified according to the occurrence of thrombotic events in thrombotic and non-thrombotic types. In addition, 20 sex and age-matched reactive subjects and 20 sex and age-matched healthy volunteer controls were enrolled. NETosis formation was assessed by measuring serum Myeloperoxidase (MPO) and Histones level using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. Both MPO and Histones levels were able to discriminate among APLS cases from normal controls, showing significant cutoffs of > 2.09 ng/ml for MPO and > 1.45 ng/ml for Histones (AUC values were 0.987and 1.000, respectively). These values can be used as predictors for NETosis pathophysiology in APLS patients. Additionally, these markers demonstrated a significant association with several prognostic indicators, including thrombosis, higher PT and INR, and lower hemoglobin (Hb) levels which are supposed to be ameliorated by using NETs inhibitors. In conclusion, we suggest that measuring NETosis markers, MPO, and Histones, in the early course of APLS using proposed cutoff values will facilitate the timely initiation of anti-NETosis therapy and improve the overall prognosis, particularly for patients with thrombotic APLS.

Insight into antiphospholipid syndrome: the role and clinical utility of neutrophils extracellular traps formation

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APLS) is a systemic immune dysregulation distinguished by repetitive complications and pregnancy loss in the absence of definite etiology. Most research focuses on the laboratory detection and clinical features of APLS, but its precise etiology remains to be deeply explored. NETosis is a newly developed theory in the pathophysiology of APLS which may serve as the missing bridge between coagulation and inflammation reaching the disease progression and severity. We aimed in this study to navigate the prognostic role of NETosis in thrombotic APLS. Our study included 49 newly diagnosed APLS patients (both 1ry and 2ry) who met clinical and laboratory criteria as per the international consensus statement on the update of the classification criteria for definite APLS and were sub-classified according to the occurrence of thrombotic events in thrombotic and non-thrombotic types. In addition, 20 sex and age-matched reactive subjects and 20 sex and age-matched healthy volunteer controls were enrolled. NETosis formation was assessed by measuring serum Myeloperoxidase (MPO) and Histones level using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. Both MPO and Histones levels were able to discriminate among APLS cases from normal controls, showing significant cutoffs of > 2.09 ng/ml for MPO and > 1.45 ng/ml for Histones (AUC values were 0.987and 1.000, respectively). These values can be used as predictors for NETosis pathophysiology in APLS patients. Additionally, these markers demonstrated a significant association with several prognostic indicators, including thrombosis, higher PT and INR, and lower hemoglobin (Hb) levels which are supposed to be ameliorated by using NETs inhibitors. In conclusion, we suggest that measuring NETosis markers, MPO, and Histones, in the early course of APLS using proposed cutoff values will facilitate the timely initiation of anti-NETosis therapy and improve the overall prognosis, particularly for patients with thrombotic APLS.

Deciphering the clinical significance of longitudinal antiphospholipid antibody titers

In antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the risk of clinical manifestations increases with higher titers of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Despite the adoption of aPL titers in the classification approach to aPL-positive subjects, the value of longitudinal monitoring of those titers in the follow-up is still debated, being well studied only in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The literature suggests that the rate of aPL positivity decreases during follow-up in primary APS, estimating that seroconversion occurs in between 8.9 and 59% of patients over time. Negativisation of aPL occurs more frequently in asymptomatic aPL carriers than in patients with full-blown APS as well as in subjects with single aPL positivity or low aPL antibody titers. In patients with SLE, aPL typically behave fluctuating from positive to negative and back again in the course of follow-up. The few studies assessing the longitudinal course of aPL positivity with no associated systemic connective tissue disease reported a progressive decrement of aPL titers over time, in particular of antibodies against β2 glycoprotein I (antiβ2GPI) and cardiolipin (aCL) of IgG isotype. After a thrombotic event, aPL titers tend to decrease, as emerged from cohorts of both primary and secondary APS. Hydroxychloroquine has been identified as the most effective pharmacological agent to reduce aPL titers, with multiple studies demonstrating a parallel reduction in thrombosis rate. This review addresses available evidence on the significance of aPL titer fluctuation from clinical, therapeutic and pathogenic perspectives.

Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing: An Audit on Testing Practices in a Public Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) are antibodies directed against cell membrane components and can be associated with clinical features or be asymptomatic. Testing and interpreting these antibodies is associated with many challenges and pitfalls in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To review all antiphospholipid antibody testing and describe the testing practices, indications for testing and interpretation of results to infer local challenges with aPL testing and subsequently address ways to overcome those challenges.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of all aPL testing done in a tertiary center between 2014 and 2018. Characteristics of study patients collected through chart review were described using the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and proportion for categorical variables. Group differences were compared between patients with any aPL-positive result and those with no positive result using chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and a simple regression model for numerical variables.

RESULTS

Among 414 patients undergoing aPL testing, mainly adult females, 62 (14.9%) patients had at least one positive antibody, of those, 26 (42%) had repeat testing done. Testing was mostly done for obstetric indication (107, 25.8%), with 36 patients having one or two early pregnancy losses <10 weeks as their testing indication. A total of 27 (6.5%) patients were labeled with APS/possible APS based on chart review, but on review of the testing of those patients according to classification criteria, only nine patients satisfied the criteria for APS.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the clinical challenges associated with aPL testing, including the controversies around indication for testing, the low rates of repeat testing to confirm persistence, and the common misinterpretation of results. Having an aPL testing profile, explicit reference ranges, results commentary, and close interaction between ordering physicians and laboratory staff might be starting points to overcome these challenges.

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.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome: State of the Art of Clinical Management

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder clinically characterized by recurrent arterial and venous thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Currently, treatment is mainly focused on anticoagulation, but therapies targeting mechanisms involved in APS autoimmune pathogenesis could play an important role in specific settings. An evidence-based therapeutic approach is limited by the broad clinical spectrum of the syndrome and the nature of a "rare disease" that makes it difficult to carry out well-designed prospective studies. Vitamin K antagonists (AVK), notably warfarin, are the standard treatment for preventing recurrent venous thrombosis and perhaps also arterial thrombosis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not recommended at least in patients with triple positivity APS. Treatment options for the prevention of pregnancy complications in obstetric APS, as combined use of aspirin and heparin, low-dose prednisolone, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), may improve pregnancy outcome. The catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) is the most severe form of APS with acute multiple organ involvement and small vessel thrombosis. Glucocorticoids, heparin, plasma exchange or IVIG, rituximab, or eculizumab must be added to concurrent treatment of precipitating factors (e.g. infections) as rescue therapies. Finally, it has been observed that SARS COV2 infection may produce vascular complications mimicking the clinical and pathophysiological features of APS and particularly of CAPS. From this point of view, attention has been focused on the "protective" role of anticoagulant therapy in preventing thrombotic complication when these clinical conditions coexist.

Criteria and Non-Criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: How Strong Are They Correlated?

The place of non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is still debatable. The aim of this research was to evaluate the correlations between the titres of non-criteria aPLs (anti-phosphatidylethanolamine (aPE), anti-phosphatidylserine (aPS), and anti-prothrombin (aPT) antibodies), and the ones of the already studied criteria aPLs (anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I-aβ2GPI antibodies). Altogether, 72 APS (30 primary and 42 secondary) patients were included in our study. High correlation coefficients (rs) were found between aPS IgM and aCL IgM, overall (0.77, p < 0.01), as well as in the primary (0.81, p < 0.01), and secondary (0.75, p < 0.01) APS subgroups. Low or statistically insignificant correlations were observed between IgG/IgM isotypes of aPT and aCL, or aβ2GPI, in the entire study population, and when evaluating the subgroups. Therefore, moderate correlations were mainly identified between the tested non-criteria antibodies and the criteria ones, suggesting little added value for the use of the tested non-criteria aPLs, with the exception of aPT, which seems to have different kinetics and might be a promising APS diagnostic tool.

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Anti-phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Antibodies (aPS/PT)

Since the discovery that antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) bind to a cofactor at the phospholipid membrane, the proteins beta-2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI) and prothrombin seemed to be the antigens of importance in the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Anti-β2GPI antibodies (aβ2GPI) were soon included in the classification criteria, while anti-prothrombin antibodies (aPT) are still regarded as "non-criteria" aPL. Evidence is accumulating that antibodies against prothrombin are clinically relevant and closely associated with APS and the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA). Among the non-criteria aPL, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are one of the most frequently studied aPL. More and more studies illustrate the evidence of the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies. aPS/PT IgG and IgM are associated with arterial and venous thrombosis, show an overlap with LA presence, and are frequently present in triple-positive patients, regarded as patients at highest risk for APS-related clinical symptoms. Moreover, the association of aPS/PT with thrombosis increases with higher titers, confirming that presence of aPS/PT consolidates the risk. So far, the added value of aPS/PT on top of the criteria aPL to diagnose APS is not clear with opposing findings in literature. Described in this chapter is the procedure for detecting these antibodies with a commercial ELISA, which can be used to determine the presence of IgG and IgM aPS/PT in human samples. Additionally, general guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aPS/PT assay will be provided.

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.

The Role of Autoantibody Testing in Modern Personalized Medicine

Personalized medicine (PM) aims individualized approach to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Precision Medicine applies the paradigm of PM by defining groups of individuals with akin characteristics. Often the two terms have been used interchangeably. The quest for PM has been advancing for centuries as traditional nosology classification defines groups of clinical conditions with relatively similar prognoses and treatment options. However, any individual is characterized by a unique set of multiple characteristics and therefore the achievement of PM implies the determination of myriad demographic, epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The accelerated identification of numerous biological variables associated with diverse health conditions contributes to the fulfillment of one of the pre-requisites for PM. The advent of multiplex analytical platforms contributes to the determination of thousands of biological parameters using minute amounts of serum or other biological matrixes. Finally, big data analysis and machine learning contribute to the processing and integration of the multiplexed data at the individual level, allowing for the personalized definition of susceptibility, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment. Autoantibodies are traditional biomarkers for autoimmune diseases and can contribute to PM in many aspects, including identification of individuals at risk, early diagnosis, disease sub-phenotyping, definition of prognosis, and treatment, as well as monitoring disease activity. Herein we address how autoantibodies can promote PM in autoimmune diseases using the examples of systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and autoimmune neurologic diseases.

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+).

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.

An Update on Antiphospholipid Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent available evidence on epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical phenotypes, and management of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and summarize potential future research perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating evidence has further expanded our understanding of the disease, including new data about the incidence and prevalence of APS, novel pathways supporting the role of thrombo-inflammation in APS including platelet, monocyte and endothelial cell activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine and chemokine production, complement activation, neutrophil extracellular trap release, and type I interferon gene expression that could yield to new potential treatment targets, better identification of criteria and non-criteria clinical phenotypes, antiphospholipid antibody profiles and their associations with clinical outcomes, prognostic tools, and treatment strategies based on recent evidence-based recommendations for patients with thrombotic and obstetric APS, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus. Ongoing research efforts and international collaborations enhance our knowledge of this rare and often devastating syndrome and help improve patient care and health outcomes.

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.

COVID-19-related laboratory coagulation findings

The alterations in the hemostatic balance in COVID-19 patients are strongly disturbed and contribute to a high prothrombotic status. The high rate of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients goes along with derangements in coagulation laboratory parameters. Hemostasis testing has an important role in diagnosed COVID-19 patients. Elevated D-dimer levels were found to be a crucial laboratory marker in the risk assessment of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients. The diagnostic approach also includes prothrombin time and platelet count. Fibrinogen might give an indication for worsening coagulopathy. Other markers (activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), fibrinolysis parameters, coagulation factors, natural anticoagulants, antiphospholipid antibodies and parameters obtained by thromboelastography or thrombin generation assays) have been described as being deranged. These may help to understand the pathophysiology of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients but have currently no place in diagnosis or management in COVID-19 patients. For monitoring the heparin anticoagulant therapy, the anti-Xa assay is suggested, because the severe acute-phase reaction (high fibrinogen and high factor VIII) shortens the aPTT.

Laboratory Approaches to Test the Function of Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder caused by the presence of aPLs (antiphospholipid antibodies, i.e., anti-β₂-glycoprotein I and anti-cardiolipin). Everyday practice in terms of laboratory diagnostics of APS includes determination of aPLs and well-known functional assays assessing for lupus anticoagulant (LA), in turn using various tests. According to recent guidelines, the recommended method for LA identification or exclusion is based on the Russell Viper Venom test and a sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time assay. Despite the fact that LA can be quantified in laboratory practice in this way, LA is still used as a binary parameter that is just one of the risk factors of thrombosis in APS. As of today, there are no other functional assays to routinely assess the risk of thrombosis in APS. It is well-known that APS patients display a wide range of clinical outcomes although they may express very similar laboratory findings. One way to solve this dilemma, could be if antibodies could be further delineated using more advanced functional tests. Therefore, we review the diagnostic approaches to test the function of aPLs. We further discuss how thrombin generation assays, and rotational thromboelastometry tests can be influenced by LA, and how experimental methods, such as flow cytometric platelet activation, surface plasmon resonance, or nano differential scanning fluorimetry can bring us closer to the puzzling interaction of aPLs with platelets as well as with their soluble protein ligand. These novel approaches may eventually enable better characterization of aPL, and also provide a better linkage to APS pathophysiology.

Systematic Review of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in COVID-19 Patients: Culprits or Bystanders?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 patients have a procoagulant state with a high prevalence of thrombotic events. The hypothesis of an involvement of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) has been suggested by several reports. Here, we reviewed 48 studies investigating aPL in COVID-19 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prevalence of Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) ranged from 35% to 92% in ICU patients. Anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgG and IgM were found in up to 52% and up to 40% of patients respectively. Anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2-GPI) IgG and IgM were found in up to 39% and up to 34% of patients respectively. Between 1% and 12% of patients had a triple positive aPL profile. There was a high prevalence of aβ2-GPI and aCL IgA isotype. Two cohort studies found few persistent LA but more persistent solid phase assay aPL over time. aPL determination and their potential role is a real challenge for the treatment of this disease.

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.

Low prevalence of antiannexin A5 antibodies in unprovoked venous thrombosis

INTRODUCTION

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity, and the detection in the blood of at least one of three antiphospholipid antibodies (lupus anticoagulant, or anticardiolipin or anti-β₂ -glycoprotein I antibodies). Diagnosing APS is important so that secondary prophylaxis may be administered to reduce risk of recurrent thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. In addition to APS-defining antibodies, there may be additional autoantibodies that have a role in thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. Furthermore, some patients have clinical manifestations highly suggestive of APS but are persistently negative for the APS-defining antibodies ("seronegative APS") and instead, have other autoantibodies. Antiannexin A5 (aANXA5) autoantibodies have been associated with increased risk of thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity; levels are also reportedly higher in patients with venous thrombosis compared with healthy controls. The prevalence of aANXA5 among patients with unprovoked venous thrombosis is not well-documented and determination of the frequency of aANXA5 is the objective of this study.

METHODS

We analysed sera from 148 patients with unprovoked venous thrombosis who had undergone routine laboratory testing for the present APS-defining antibodies.

RESULTS

aANXA5 IgG and IgM were present in 6% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of these antibodies in unprovoked venous thrombosis is comparable with frequencies reported in healthy individuals and is far lower than the prevalence in women with pregnancy morbidity. This may indicate lack of association with venous thrombosis, however, adequately powered case-control studies will be required to resolve this and prevalence data from this study will assist in the design of such studies.

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).

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: A practical guide to diagnosis and management

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterised by venous, arterial and/or small vessel thrombosis in the context of persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). The diagnosis and management of thrombotic APS continues to prove challenging for clinicians. We provide a practical guide to the diagnosis of APS including who to test for aPL and which tests to do. We also consider clinical practice points on the management of venous, arterial and small vessel thrombosis, in the context of first and recurrent thrombotic events. Non-criteria manifestations of APS are reviewed. An approach to recurrent thrombosis and anticoagulant-refractory APS is discussed, with options including increasing the anticoagulation intensity of vitamin K antagonists, switching to low-molecular-weight-heparin, the use of fondaparinux and/or the addition of antiplatelet treatment. Adjunctive options such as vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine and statins are also addressed.

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.