Anticoagulation in management of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome in pregnancy

Management and outcomes of women with antiphospholipid syndrome during pregnancy

Women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. To define clinical, serologic, and treatment factors that can predict outcomes in pregnant women with APS. Retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with APS evaluated at a university medical center between January 2006 and August 2021. Demographics, personal and family history of thrombosis, autoimmune disease, antithrombotic use, pregnancy outcomes, maternal and fetal complications were collected. We compared pregnancy outcomes in the presence or absence of lupus anticoagulant (LA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), prior thrombosis or pregnancy losses, and antithrombotic use. There were 169 pregnancies in 50 women; 79 (46.7%) occurred after maternal diagnosis of APS. The most common antithrombotic regimen was aspirin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in 26.6% of pregnancies; 55.0% of all pregnancies and 68.4% of pregnancies post-APS diagnosis resulted in a live birth. In age-adjusted analyses, aspirin plus LMWH regardless of dosage was associated with significantly higher odds of live birth compared with no antithrombotic use (OR = 7.5, p < 0.001) and compared with aspirin alone (OR = 13.2, p = 0.026). SLE increased the risk for preterm birth and preeclampsia. A positive LA did not impact the outcomes evaluated and anticardiolipin IgM decreased the risk of pre-eclampsia. The presence of SLE is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in pregnant women with APS. Treatment with LMWH and aspirin was superior to aspirin alone. The creation of a global registry may be useful in improving the management of these patients.

Antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss in antiphospholipid syndrome-What is the evidence?

Aspirin and heparin are widely used to reduce the risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid syndrome. This practice is based on only a few intervention studies, and uncertainty regarding benefits and risk remains. In this case-based review, we summarize the available evidence and address the questions that are most important for clinical practice. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of heparin (low molecular weight heparin [LMWH] or unfractionated heparin [UFH]), aspirin, or both on live birth rates in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss. Eleven trials including 1672 women met the inclusion criteria. Aspirin only did not increase live birth rate compared to placebo in one trial of 40 women (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.25). One trial of 141 women reported a higher live birth rate with LMWH only than with aspirin only (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.00-1.43). Five trials totaling 1295 women compared heparin plus aspirin with aspirin only. The pooled RR for live birth was 1.27 (95% CI 1.09-1.49) in favor of heparin plus aspirin. There was significant heterogeneity between the subgroups of LMWH and UFH (RR for LWMH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.38; RR for UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.74, 95% CI: 1.28-2.35; I2  78.9%, p = .03). Characteristics of participants and adverse events were not uniformly reported. Heparin (LMWH or UFH) plus aspirin may improve live birth rates in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and antiphospholipid antibodies, but evidence is of low certainty.

Aspirin or heparin or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND

Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ₂-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβ₂GPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.

Trends in Maternal and Fetal Outcomes Among Pregnant Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the United States: A Cross-sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although pregnancy in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) carries a high risk for mother and fetus, outcomes may be improving.

OBJECTIVE

To assess nationwide trends and disparities in maternal and fetal complications among pregnant women with SLE.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

United States, 1998 to 2015.

PATIENTS

Adult pregnant women with and without SLE who had hospitalizations recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcome measures were in-hospital maternal mortality, fetal mortality, preeclampsia or eclampsia, caesarean sections, non-delivery-related admissions, and length of stay. To assess whether trends in outcomes over time differed between patients with SLE and those without SLE, logistic or linear regression with an interaction term between year and SLE (yes or no) was used. Nationwide population estimates incorporating sampling and poststratification weights were obtained.

RESULTS

An estimated 93 820 pregnant women with SLE and 78 045 054 without SLE were hospitalized in the United States from 1998 through 2015. Outcomes improved during those 18 years. In-hospital maternal deaths (per 100 000 admissions) declined among patients with as well as those without SLE (442 vs. 13 for 1998 to 2000 and <50 vs. 10 for 2013 to 2015), although the decrease was greater in women with SLE (difference in trends, P < 0.002). The percentage of patients with SLE in all pregnancy-related, as well as delivery-related, admissions increased significantly.

LIMITATIONS

The sample for this analysis was identified by using diagnostic codes; detailed information on hospital-specific trends, SLE disease activity, and medications was not available. Race trends could not be analyzed. Given that NIS uses weighted estimates, the incidence of outcomes reported may not be exact.

CONCLUSION

In this large study examining SLE and non-SLE pregnancies over 18 years, in-hospital maternal mortality and overall outcomes improved markedly, particularly among women with SLE. However, improvement is still needed, because SLE pregnancy risks remain high.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Immunological Tolerance, Pregnancy, and Preeclampsia: The Roles of Semen Microbes and the Father

Although it is widely considered, in many cases, to involve two separable stages (poor placentation followed by oxidative stress/inflammation), the precise originating causes of preeclampsia (PE) remain elusive. We have previously brought together some of the considerable evidence that a (dormant) microbial component is commonly a significant part of its etiology. However, apart from recognizing, consistent with this view, that the many inflammatory markers of PE are also increased in infection, we had little to say about immunity, whether innate or adaptive. In addition, we focused on the gut, oral and female urinary tract microbiomes as the main sources of the infection. We here marshall further evidence for an infectious component in PE, focusing on the immunological tolerance characteristic of pregnancy, and the well-established fact that increased exposure to the father's semen assists this immunological tolerance. As well as these benefits, however, semen is not sterile, microbial tolerance mechanisms may exist, and we also review the evidence that semen may be responsible for inoculating the developing conceptus (and maybe the placenta) with microbes, not all of which are benign. It is suggested that when they are not, this may be a significant cause of PE. A variety of epidemiological and other evidence is entirely consistent with this, not least correlations between semen infection, infertility and PE. Our view also leads to a series of other, testable predictions. Overall, we argue for a significant paternal role in the development of PE through microbial infection of the mother via insemination.

Recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with rheumatic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases during the reproductive age, pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations on the evaluation and management of patients with rheumatic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases during the reproductive age, pregnancy, post-partum and breastfeeding based on the best evidence and experience.

METHODS

Recommendations were generated using nominal group and Delphi techniques. An expert panel of 12 rheumatologists was established. A systematic literature review and a narrative review (websites, clinical guidelines and other relevant documentation) were performed and presented to the panel in its 1^st meeting to be discussed and to help define recommendations. A first draft of recommendations was generated and circulated for comments and wording refinement. A national survey analyzing different aspects of this topic was undertaken separately, followed by a Delphi process (2 rounds). Agreement with each recommendation was ranked on a scale of 1 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement), and was considered to be achieved if at least 70% voted≥7. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14 recommendations were generated for the preconception period (oral and hormonal contraception, reproductive techniques), pregnancy (planning, treatment and follow-up), and breastfeeding (treatment and follow-up). High-risk situations such as lupus or antiphospholipid syndrome were included. A consensus>90% was reached for all but one recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are intended to provide rheumatologists, patients, families and other stakeholders with a consensus on the evaluation and management of patients with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases during the reproductive age, pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding.