How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

Toward harmonized interpretation of anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibody detection for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome using defined level intervals and likelihood ratios: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Improving harmonization of the clinical interpretation of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is desirable. Likelihood ratios (LRs) with corresponding test-result intervals can identify the power of a test to discriminate between a diseased and nondiseased patient and may be useful for the semiquantitative interpretation of aCL/aβ2GPI results.

OBJECTIVES

To determine moderate and high thresholds for aCL and aβ2GPI IgG/IgM measured with chemiluminescent immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, fluorescence enzyme immunoassay, and multiplex flow immunoassay.

METHODS

aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies IgG/IgM were determined with 4 solid-phase systems in a case-control study population including 381 APS patients and 727 controls. Interval-specific LRs (IS-LR) were calculated for ranges determined by prespecified specificity and sensitivity levels. Three methods were used for determining thresholds that separated low, moderate, and high positive antibody levels. Interassay agreement was checked with Cohen's kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Assay- and antibody-specific thresholds demonstrated increasing IS-LR, reflecting different clinical significance for low, moderate, and high levels, especially for IgG aCL and aβ2GPI and in thrombotic APS. IS-LRs per antibody and unit range were comparable across solid-phase platforms resulting in enhanced harmonization of result interpretation. Agreement between assays for identifying high levels was improved by semiquantitative interpretation compared with that by quantitative reporting.

CONCLUSION

aCL and aβ2GPI IgG/IgM moderate and high thresholds were determined for 4 analytical platforms. Thresholds improve harmonized interpretation of aCL/aβ2GPI levels across platforms. The proposed thresholds should be verified in an independent case-control study to check interlaboratory transferability.

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.

Determining Thrombogenicity: Using a Modified Thrombin Generation Assay to Detect the Level of Thrombotic Event Risk in Lupus Anticoagulant-Positive Patients

The aim of this study was to determine the thrombogenicity of lupus anticoagulant (LA) antibodies using a modified thrombin generation assay (TGA) with the addition of activated protein C (APC) in a group of 85 patients with LA-positive samples. Of these, 58 patients had clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) according to the Sydney criteria classification, i.e., each patient had thrombosis or foetal loss, and 27 patients did not show any clinical manifestations of APS. A comparison of the two groups' TGA results revealed statistically significant differences (Fisher's test p = 0.0016). The group of patients exhibiting clinical manifestations of APS showed higher thrombogenicity in 56.9% of patients, while the group of patients not yet exhibiting clinical manifestations of APS showed higher thrombogenicity in 25.9% of patients. There were no significant differences in the specificity of the TGA test between the groups of patients exhibiting similar clinical manifestations. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed a more significant relationship (p = 0.0060) for TGA than for LA titre (p = 0.3387). These data suggest that the determination of LA thrombogenicity with the TGA assay leads to an increased prediction of the manifestation of a thromboembolic event. Our findings appear to be particularly relevant for the prediction of thrombotic events in patients with laboratory-expressed APS and no clinical manifestations.

Prevalence of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome misclassification in an academic health system

PURPOSE

Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome (APS) is a complex autoimmune disorder that includes a combination of laboratory criteria and clinical events (thrombosis, pregnancy complications). Accurate classification is essential, as APS patients may have limited oral anticoagulant options and requires indefinite anticoagulation. The prevalence of inaccurate APS misclassification is unknown. This study sought to determine the proportion of patients in an academic health-system who formally met APS criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included any patient within the University of Utah Health system who had an International Classification of Diseases-10 code for APS, between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. Manual chart review was performed to assess the appropriateness of the APS classification by laboratory and clinical criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 184 patients identified, 59 (32.1 %) formally met APS criteria, while 69 (37.5 %) did not meet criteria. The remaining 56 (30.4 %) patients lacked enough information in their medical records to decide on appropriateness of APS classification. The most prevalent reason for inappropriate APS classification in the 69 patients identified was incorrect interpretation of lab values as positive (62; 89.9 %), followed by lack of repeat confirmation testing (32; 46.4 %).

CONCLUSION

The results of this single-center study indicate that only one-third of patients with presumed APS met classification criteria. This was predominantly due to incorrect collection or interpretation of APS laboratory data. One-third had insufficient medical record data to determine APS classification, which impairs clinical decision-making. This suggests more education or implementation of anticoagulation stewardship is needed to ensure accurate APS classification and proper management of anticoagulation therapy.

Stroke risk in multiple sclerosis: a critical appraisal of the literature

Observational studies suggest that the occurrence of stroke on multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is higher compared to the general population. MS is a heterogeneous disease that involves an interplay of genetic, environmental and immune factors. The occurrence of stroke is subject to a wide range of both modifiable and non-modifiable, short- and long-term risk factors. Both MS and stroke share common risk factors. The immune mechanisms that underlie stroke are similar to neurodegenerative diseases and are attributed to neuroinflammation. The inflammation in autoimmune diseases may, therefore, predispose to an increased risk for stroke or potentiate the effect of conventional stroke risk factors. There are, however, additional determinants that contribute to a higher risk and incidence of stroke in MS. Due to the challenges that are associated with their differential diagnosis, the objective is to present an overview of the factors that may contribute to increased susceptibility or occurrence of stroke in MSpatients by performing a review of the available to date literature. As both MS and stroke can individually detrimentally affect the quality of life of afflicted patients, the identification of factors that contribute to an increased risk for stroke in MS is crucial for the prompt implementation of preventative therapeutic measures to limit the additive burden that stroke imposes.

Levels and avidities of antiphosphatidylethanolamine antibodies in patients with thrombotic events and immunologically-mediated diseases

AIMS

Antiphosphatidylethanolamine antibodies (aPE) represent one type of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) directed against the neutral phospholipids - phosphatidylethanolamines. The aim of this study was to evaluate levels and avidities of aPE in several groups of patients and compare them with conventional aPLs.

METHODS

aPE were analysed in a cohort consisting of 68 hospitalized patients. The other cohort comprised 22 patients with immunologically-mediated diseases. The control group consisted of 20 healthy persons. ELISA methods were used for determination of aPL. Avidities of aPE were tested by modified ELISA with urea as a chaotropic agent.

RESULTS

aPE IgG/IgM were significantly higher in the group of patients with venous thromboembolism than those with non-thrombotic internal disorders (P=0.02 for both Ig classes). aPE IgG/IgM elevated above cut-off values were found in 10.8% of patients with venous thromboembolism and as a single aPL in 6.5%. Levels of aPE IgG higher than our limit (>6 U/mL) were detected in 29% of patients with immunologically-mediated diseases with other positive aPL. Low-, intermediate- and high-avidity aPE IgG were found in patients of both cohorts. The avidities of aPE IgG differed from those of anticardiolipin antibodies IgG. Neither aPE IgG levels nor avidity dynamics significantly changed during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

aPE may be related to venous thromboembolism and may be part of the repertoire of aPL in immunologically-mediated diseases. There are patients with thrombosis negative for conventional aPL but positive for aPE. aPE IgG may have different avidities.

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.

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).

Determination of Thrombogenicity Levels of Various Antiphospholipid Antibodies by a Modified Thrombin Generation Assay in Patients with Suspected Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a hypercoagulable state accompanied by the presence of heterogeneous antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), which nonspecifically affect hemostasis by the presence of lupus anticoagulans (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), antibodies against β2-glycoprotein-I (anti-β2GPI), but also non-criteria antibodies such as antibodies against β2-glycoprotein-I domain I (anti-DI), anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (anti-PS/PT), anti-annexin V, and many others. The main target of the antibodies is the activated protein C (APC) system, the elimination of which can manifest itself as a thrombotic complication. The aim of this study was to determine the thrombogenicity of antibodies using a modified protein C-activated thrombin generation assay (TGA) on a group of 175 samples suspected of APS. TGA was measured with/without APC and the ratio of both measurements was evaluated (as for APC resistance), where a cut-off was calculated ≤4.5 (90th percentile) using 21 patients with heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation (FV Leiden heterozygous). Our study demonstrates the well-known fact that multiple positivity of different aPLs is a more severe risk for thrombosis than single positivity. Of the single antibody positivity, LA antibodies are the most serious (p value < 0.01), followed by aCL and their subgroup anti-DI (p value < 0.05). Non-criteria antibodies anti-annexin V and anti-PT/PS has a similar frequency occurrence of thrombogenicity as LA antibodies but without statistical significance or anti-β2GPI1 positivity. The modified TGA test can help us identify patients in all groups who are also at risk for recurrent thrombotic and pregnancy complications; thus, long-term prophylactic treatment is appropriate. For this reason, it is proving increasingly beneficial to include the determination antibodies in combination with modified TGA test.

Antibodies to the phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome

Aim. To determine the significance of antibodies to the phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex (aPS/PT) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Materials and methods. A total of 190 patients were included in the study: 123 (64.7%) with reliable SLE and 55 (29%) with PAPS. The control group included 100 relatively healthy subjects of comparable age. All patients were tested for classical aPL as well as IgG/IgM-anti-PS/PT by enzyme immunoassay. Results. Based on the average values of IgG/IgM aPS/PT of the control group, the levels of positivity were allocated mean (M) + 3 or 5 standard deviations (SD): M+3SD and M+5SD. IgG aPS/PT levels above 73.6 U/ml (M+5SD) were more accurate diagnostic, for IgM aPS/PT above 18.0 U/ml. IgG-aPS/PT were detected in 84 (44%) of 190 patients. Levels above diagnostic levels were detected in 68 (65%) of 104 patients with APS (55 with PAPS and 59 with SLE+APS). Thrombosis was significantly more common in patients with IgG aPS/PT compared with patients negative for IgG aPS/PT. Arterial but not venous thrombosis was associated with IgG aPS/PT positivity. Conclusion. The frequency of detection of IgG aPS/PT in the examined patients was 44%, IgM aPS/PT 29% and their combination 19% of 190 patients. Half of the patients with probable APS had positive IgG aPS/PT and third IgM aPS/PT. Median IgG aPS/PT were significantly higher in patients with APS compared to patients without APS and the control group. Thrombosis was associated with IgG aPS/PT. Arterial thrombosis was significantly more frequently reported in patients with IgG aPS/PT. The sensitivity of IgG aPS/PT for reliable APS at levels greater than 73.6 units/ml was 59%, specificity 92%, for IgM aPS/PT 35% and 91%, respectively.

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.

Cardiac manifestations in primary antiphospholipid syndrome and their association to antiphospholipid antibodies' types and titers-cross-sectional study of Serbian cohort

OBJECTIVES

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is multisystem autoimmune coagulopathy with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in its ground, manifested as a primary disease (PAPS) or in the setting of other conditions, most commonly systemic lupus erythematosus. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to investigate various cardiac manifestations and their possible relation to aPL type and titer in a Serbian cohort of PAPS patients.

METHODS

A total of 360 PAPS patients were analyzed and aPL analysis included detection of anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL: IgG/IgM), anti-ß2glycoprotein I (ß2GPI: IgG/IgM), and lupus anticoagulant (LA). Cardiac manifestations investigated were valvular lesions (comprehending valvular thickening and dysfunction not related to age and pseudoinfective endocarditis), coronary artery disease (CAD) with specific insight for myocardial infarction (MI), chronic cardiomyopathy (CMP), and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) as well as pulmonary hypertension (PH) and intracardiac thrombus presence.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cardiac manifestations overall was 19.6%. There was a strong association between age and the majority of cardiac manifestations, as well as standard atherosclerotic risk factors. aCL IgG-positive patients had a higher prevalence of valvular lesions (p = 0.042). LA presence was significantly related to MI (p = 0.031) and PH (p = 0.044). CMP and ADHF were significantly related to higher titers of aCl IgG (p = 0.033, p = 0.025 respectively). Age and smoking were independent risk predictors for MI in PAPS with meaningful risk for LA positivity (OR 2.567 CI 0.671-9.820 p = 0.168).

CONCLUSIONS

Certain cardiac manifestations in PAPS were related to certain aPL type and/or titer levels, imposing confirmation in prospective studies. Preventive actions, comprehending proper anticoagulant/antithrombotic therapy, and intense action against standard atherosclerotic risk factors are of utmost importance in this group of patients. Key Points • In Serbian patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS), prevalence of non-criteria cardiac manifestations was 19.6% and they were significantly related to certain antiphospholipid antibodies and titers. • Lupus anticoagulant was a meaningful predictor of myocardial infarction, enabling possible risk stratification and proper preventive and therapeutical strategies in this subgroup of PAPS patients. • Patients with high titers of aCL IgG are more prone to acute decompensated heart failure occurence, imposing careful follow-up of these patients • Based on the analysis of the Serbian PAPS cohort, even being non-criterial, cardiology manifestations are significantly present and inclusion of cardiologists in treatment and follow-up of these patients should be implied from the diagnosis establishment.

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.

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.

Anti-Phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Antibodies at Two Points: Correlation With Lupus Anticoagulant and Thrombotic Risk

Antibodies to phospholipids (aPL) and associated proteins are a hallmark in the diagnosis of anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS). Those included in the classification criteria are the lupus anticoagulant (LA) and the IgG and IgM isotypes of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) antibodies. Non-classification criteria markers such as autoantibodies that recognize the phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) complex have been proposed as biomarkers for APS. Studies of aPS/PT antibodies have shown a strong correlation to clinical manifestations and LA. We aimed to study the value and the persistence of aPS/PT IgG and IgM antibodies in a cohort of consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of APS and their utility as thrombotic risk markers. Our study, with 103 patients, demonstrates that persistently positive results for aPS/PT IgG antibodies were significantly associated with APS classification, thrombosis, triple aPL positivity, LA positive result, and the Global APS Score (GAPSS) > than 9 points (p < 0.01, for each condition). On the other hand, no association was seen with pregnancy morbidity (p = 0.56) and SLE (p = 0.07). Persistence of aPS/PT antibodies, defined according to the current laboratory classification criteria, likely improves the diagnosis and clinical assessment of patients with APS.

Low molecular weight heparin or LMWH plus aspirin in the treatment of unexplained recurrent miscarriage with negative antiphospholipid antibodies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Unexplained recurrent miscarriage (uRM) has caused serious distress to women of childbearing age, and effective treatment is particularly important. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and LMWH combined with aspirin for uRM.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to identify randomized controlled trials that reported the LMWH or LMWH combined with aspirin for women with uRM and negative antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). The retrieval time is limited from inception to June 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed risk bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using STATA 12.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies involving 1849 patients were included. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with the control group, both LMWH and LMWH + aspirin interventions showed no substantial influence on miscarriage rate (LMWH: RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.34-1.39, P = 0.293, LMWH + aspirin: RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.30-1.27, P = 0.19) and the occurrence of pre-eclampsia (LMWH: RR = 1.1, 95%CI: 0.53-2.31, P = 0.792; LMWH + aspirin: RR = 1.49, 95%CI: 0.25-8.79, P = 0.662). LMWH therapy had no influence on the live births (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.92-1.06, P = 0.72). Subgroup analysis showed that enoxaparin is not effective in women with uRM and negative aPL (miscarriage rate: RR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.31-2.19, P = 0.695; pre-eclampsia: RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.46-2.33, P = 0.936).

CONCLUSIONS

LMWH and LMWH combined with aspirin therapy cannot improve the pregnancy outcome of women with uRM and negative aPL. However, the above conclusions are still required to be verified through more RCTs due to the limited quantity of included studies.

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.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Value of Non-criteria Antibodies for Antiphospholipid Syndrome Patients in a Chinese Cohort

Objective

Although specific anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPLs) have been used in the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) for years, new biomarkers are required to increase its diagnostic and risk-predictive power. This study aimed to explore the value of several non-criteria aPLs in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

A total of 312 subjects, namely, 100 patients diagnosed with primary APS, 51 with APS secondary to SLE, 71 with SLE, and 90 healthy controls, were recruited. Serum anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM/IgA, anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM/IgA, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM, and anti-annexin A5 antibodies (aAnxV) IgG/IgM were tested using ELISA kits.

Results

Of the total number of patients, 30.46% and 6.62% with APS were positive for aCL or aβ2GPI IgA, respectively, while 39.07% and 24.50% were positive for aAnxV or aPS/PT for at least one antibody (IgG or IgM). The addition test of aCL IgA and aAnxV IgM assists in identifying seronegative APS patients, and IgG aPS/PT was linked to stroke.

Conclusion

Detection of aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, aAnxV IgG/M, and aPS/PT IgG/M as a biomarker provides additive value in APS diagnosis and would help in risk prediction for APS patients in medical practice.

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.

Applying index of circulating anticoagulant to mixing tests with lupus anticoagulant screen and confirm reagents can distinguish with high specificity between lupus anticoagulants and direct factor Xa inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are detected by prolongation of clotting times for dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) screening tests. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can interfere with both screening and confirmatory tests. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of direct factor Xa inhibitors (DiXaIs) on screen, confirm and mixing tests and establish a method for differentiation from other sample types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 257 samples including nonanticoagulated LA positive, LA positive with DiXaIs, factor deficiency, FVIII inhibitors, warfarin and non-APS DiXaIs were tested. APTT reagents Cephen LS/Cephen and dRVVT reagents LA1/LA2 were used, respectively, to screen/confirm the study group. Index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA) was calculated from clotting times based on the following formula as ICA screening and ICA confirmation. ICA= (1:1 Mix sample - Normal pooled plasma) / Screen patient x 100. An ICA matrix was established which suggested the presence of a DiXaI when both ICA screening and confirmation were above the cut-off. When only ICA screening is elevated, LA is suspected.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the ICA matrix were 52.2% and 92.8% for DiXaIs and 38.1% and 96.7% for LA in APTT, and 61.2% and 92.9% for DiXaIs and 22.2% and 88.4% for LA in dRVVT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ICA matrix achieved high specificity with a lower apparent sensitivity for DiXaI samples comparatively to other devices but due only to less interferences: the matrix could contribute to differentiating DiXaIs from LA in samples where anticoagulation status is unknown.

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).

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.