Recommendations of the Spanish Rheumatology Society for Primary Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Part II: Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Special Situations

Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: How Different Is from Sidney Criteria? A Single-Center Study

This study aims to compare the demographic characteristics, clinical features, serology, and fetal-maternal outcomes between women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and those with non-criteria (NC)-APS and seronegative (SN)-APS. Two-hundred and sixty-three women with APS obstetric morbidity ever pregnant were included. Of those, 66 met the APS classification criteria, 140 were NC-APS, and 57 were SN-APS. Patients with other autoimmune diseases were excluded. Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) included early pregnancy loss, fetal death, preeclampsia, abruptio placentae, and preterm birth. The mean age of the study group was 33.6 ± 5.3 years, and patients were followed up for 129.5 ± 81.9 months. In the NC-APS group, 31 (22.1%) did not fulfill clinical and serological criteria (Subgroup A), 49 (35%) did meet clinical but not serologic criteria (Subgroup B), and 60 (42.9%) fulfilled the serologic criteria but not the clinical ones (Subgroup C). The cardiovascular risk burden was higher in the APS group, due to a higher proportion of smoking. Patients with criteria APS received more intensive treatment than patients in the other study groups. The addition of standard of care (SoC) treatment significantly improved live birth and decreased APO in all groups. Significant clinical differences were observed between the study groups. However, when treated with SoC, fetal-maternal outcomes were similar, with a significant improvement in live births and a decrease in APO. Risk stratification in patients with obstetric morbidity associated with APS can help individualize their treatment.

Clinical and therapeutic value of the adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score in primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical utility of the adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) to predict new obstetric events during follow-up in primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS) patients under standard-of-care treatment (SC) based on the use of low-dose aspirin (LDA) + heparin and (2) to study the risk of a first thrombotic event and to evaluate whether stratification according to this score could help to identify POAPS patients who would benefit from long-term thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicentre study. 169 women with POAPS were evaluated for the presence of a new obstetric event and/or a first thrombotic event during follow-up [time period: 2008-2020, median: 7 years (6-12 years)]. The outcomes of 107 pregnancies from these POAPS patients with SC were studied to evaluate relapses. Simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Regarding obstetric morbidity, only triple positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) [OR = 8.462 (95% CI: 2.732-26.210); p < 0.0001] was found to be a strong risk factor independently associated with treatment failure. On the other hand, triple positivity for aPLs [OR=10.44 (95% CI: 2.161-50.469), p = 0.004] and an aGAPSS ≥7 [OR = 1.621 (95% CI: 1.198-2.193), p = 0.002] were independent risk factors associated with a first thrombotic event. LDA was marginally associated with a decrease in the risk of thrombosis only in patients with aGAPSS ≥ 7 (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

aGAPSS appears to be useful in predicting the occurrence of a first thrombotic event in POAPS patients, and these stratification of patients could be helpful in selecting patients who would benefit from thromboprophylaxis with LDA.

Does Adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) Predict the Obstetric Outcome in Antiphospholipid Antibody Carriers? A Single-Center Study

The adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Score (aGAPSS) is a tool proposed to quantify the risk for antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)-related clinical manifestations. However, aGAPSS has been validated mainly for thrombotic events and studies on APS-related obstetric manifestations are scarce. Furthermore, the majority of them included patients with positive aPL and different autoimmune diseases. Here, we assess the utility of aGAPSS to predict the response to treatment in aPL carriers without other autoimmune disorders. One-hundred and thirty-seven women with aPL ever pregnant were included. Sixty-five meet the APS classification criteria, 61 had APS-related obstetric manifestations, and 11 were asymptomatic carriers. The patients' aGAPSS risk was grouped as low (< 6, N = 73), medium (6-11, N = 40), and high risk (≥ 12, N = 24). Since vascular risk factors included in the aGAPSS were infrequent in this population (< 10%), the aGAPSS score was mainly determined by the aPL profile. Overall, the live birth rate was 75%, and 37.2% of the patients had at least one adverse pregnancy outcome (APO). When considering patients according to the aGAPSS (high, medium, and low risk), no significant differences were found for pregnancy loss (29.2%, 25%, and 21.9%) or APO (33.3%, 47.5%, and 32.9%). In the present study, including aPL carriers without other autoimmune diseases, aGAPSS is not a valuable tool to identify patients at risk for obstetric complications despite treatment. In these patients with gestational desire, in addition to the aPL profile, other pregnancy-specific factors, such as age or previous obstetric history, should be considered.