A Multilaboratory Peer Assessment Quality Assurance Program-Based Evaluation of Anticardiolipin Antibody, and beta2-Glycoprotein I Antibody Testing

Evolution of Hemostasis Testing: A Personal Reflection Covering over 40 Years of History

There is no certainty in change, other than change is certain. As Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis celebrates 50 years of publication, I felt it appropriate to reflect on my own 40-year plus scientific career. My career in the thrombosis and hemostasis field did not start until 1987, but the subsequent 35 years reflected a period of significant change in associated disease diagnostics. I started in the Westmead Hospital "coagulation laboratory" when staff were still performing manual clotting tests, using stopwatches, pipettes, test tubes, and a water bath, which we transported to the hospital outpatient department to run our weekly warfarin clinic. Several hemostasis instruments have come and gone, including the Coag-A-Mate X2, the ACL-300R, the MDA-180, the BCS XP, and several StaR Evolution analyzers. Some instruments remain, including the PFA-100, PFA-200, the AggRAM, the CS-5100, an AcuStar, a Hydrasys gel system, and two ACL-TOP 750s. We still have a water bath, but this is primarily used to defrost frozen samples, and manual clotting tests are only used to teach visiting medical students. We have migrated across several methodologies in the 45-year history of the local laboratory. Laurel gel rockets, used for several assays in the 1980s, were replaced with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay assays and most assays were eventually placed on automated instruments. Radio-isotopic assays, used in the 1980s, were replaced by an alternate safer method or else abandoned. Test numbers have increased markedly over time. The approximately 31,000 hemostasis assays performed at the Westmead-based laboratory in 1983 had become approximately 200,000 in 2022, a sixfold increase. Some 90,000 prothrombin times and activated partial thromboplastic times are now performed at this laboratory per year. Thrombophilia assays were added to the test repertoires over time, as were the tests to measure several anticoagulant drugs, most recently the direct oral anticoagulants. I hope my personal history, reflecting on the changes in hemostasis testing over my career to date in the field, is found to be of interest to the readership, and I hope they forgive any inaccuracies I have introduced in this reflection of the past.

The antiphospholipid syndrome - often overlooked cause of vascular occlusions?

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) was fully recognized as a clinical entity in the early 1980s. Still, more than 30 years later, the epidemiology of APS is not well described, and furthermore, APS remains a challenge in terms of both diagnostic issues and clinical praxis involving a wide range of specialties. To date, there are no diagnostic criteria for APS. The present classification criteria rely on a combination of clinical manifestations and persistently positive tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Clinical symptoms comprise vascular thrombosis, which can affect any vascular bed, including venous, microvascular and arterial vessels, and a set of pregnancy morbidities including early and late miscarriages, foetal death and preeclampsia. APS is more frequent among patients with other autoimmune diseases, and it is especially common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Importantly, APS symptoms can present in almost any medical specialty, but general knowledge and most previous clinical studies have essentially been confined to haematology, rheumatology and obstetrics/gynaecology. However, recent data demonstrate a relatively high prevalence of aPL also in patients from the general population who suffer from vascular occlusions or pregnancy complications. It is important that these patients are recognized by the general health care since APS is a treatable condition. This review aims to summarize the present knowledge on the history, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations and treatment of APS in order to urge a wide range of clinicians to consider comprehensive assessment of all patients where the diagnosis APS may be conceivable.

Obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

The present clinical and laboratory classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) were established in Sydney, Australia, in 2006. In this review, we focus on the obstetric subset of APS (OAPS), defined by persistent positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies together with either early recurrent pregnancy loss, early fetal death, stillbirth or premature birth <34 gestational weeks due to pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and placental insufficiency. It is important to diagnose these cases since most women suffering from OAPS can, when given appropriate treatment, have successful pregnancies. Furthermore, patients with OAPS may, depending on the antibody profile, be at enhanced risk of thrombotic events later in life. We present an update on the present knowledge of possible underlying pathogenesis, risk factors and risk estimations for adverse pregnancy outcomes before and during pregnancy, current treatment concepts, and long-term outcomes for women with OAPS and their children.

Effects of direct oral anticoagulants on lupus anticoagulant assays in a real-life setting

Laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant (LA) is based on prolongation in at least one coagulation assay (diluted Russell’s viper venom time – dRVVT or activated partial thromboplastin time – aPTT), which normalises after addition of phospholipids. Both assays may be influenced by anticoagulants and therefore LA should not be tested during warfarin or heparin treatment. It has been shown (primarily in vitro) that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs – dabigatran [DAB], rivaroxaban [RIV] and apixaban [API]) may also influence LA testing. We tested the effects of DOACs on assays routinely used for the diagnosis of LA in patients treated with these drugs in a real-life setting. Plasma from patients with atrial fibrillation treated with DAB (n=30), RIV (n=20) and API (n=17) and not known to have LA were tested using dRVVT (LA-screen and LA-confirm, Life Diagnostics) and aPTT (PTT-LA, Diagnostica Stago and aPTT Actin FS, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) assays. According to the diagnostics algorithm, dRVVT and aPTT ratios of <1.2 were considered negative, ratios of >1.4 positive, while if the ratios were 1.2–1.4 LA could not be ruled out. Plasma concentrations varied between 8–172 µg/l for DAB, 8–437 µg/l for RIV and 36–178 µg/l for API. LA diagnosis was negative in only eight (27 %) plasma samples from patients treated with DAB, and in five (25 %) and four samples (24 %) from patients treated with RIV and API, respectively. LA Positivity (dRVVT and aPTT ratios >1.4) was found in 5 cases (17 %) among patients treated with DAB, in 10 cases (50 %) treated with RIV and in 7 cases (41 %) treated with API. A concentration-dependent effect of DOACs on dRVVT-based parameters was observed, particularly as regards DAB. At lower concentrations, RIV and API had only minor effects on the confirmatory tests (below 100 µg/l and 70 µg/l, respectively). Our results suggest that a risk of overestimation of LA detection is present in samples from patients treated with DOACs. Therefore, LA testing should not be performed during treatment with DOACs. Prolongation in confirmatory assays may be helpful for the recognition of false positivity, especially as regards DAB.

Variability in Anticardiolipin Antibody Detection: Role of Nonspecific IgG Binding and Different Microtiter Plates

There are many studies that are available on the Internet that attempt to standardize the assay for anticardiolipin antibody evaluation because of the variability of results. The aim of this study was to evaluate simultaneously the role of different microplates and the importance of sample nonspecific binding in determining different results in anticardiolipin antibody detection. Sera from 8 patients with raised levels of IgG anticardiolipin antibodies and 10 control sera were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the presence (specific binding) or in the absence of cardiolipin (sample blank) with four different microplates, that is, NUNC PolySorp, FALCON ProBIND, Greiner 655061 (high binding), and Greiner 655001 (medium binding). Results were expressed as optical densities or net-optical densities (following sample blank subtraction) as well as international IgG anticardiolipin units (GPL) or net-GPL. A wide interplate variability of optical densities was found. When results were expressed as GPL, significant differences were only found between Greiner 655061, FALCON ProBIND, and NUNC PolySorp ( P < .05 and P < .001, respectively) whereas differences were not statistically significant if interplate variability was analyzed as net-GPL. Results expressed as categorical variables (ie, positive/negative, according to a GPL cut-off and net-GPL cut-off, obtained with sera from 100 apparently healthy blood donors) showed a good or excellent Cohen's κ coefficient of concordance among plates when positivity was evaluated on net-GPL. Our data strongly suggest that quantification and subtraction of sample blank may improve both interlaboratory agreement and reliability of anticardiolipin assay and minimize false-positive results.

Anti-cardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies: normal reference ranges in northwestern Italy

Laboratory tests for anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2glycoprotein I antibodies (a-β2GPI) face problems common to many autoantibody assays: the lack of a reference standard and the need for each laboratory to assess assay-specific cut-off values. The aims of the study were to evaluate the reference range upper limits (99th percentile) used for aCL and a-β2GPI in the northwest of Italy and to investigate the analytical performances of these assays with the newly obtained reference ranges. We assayed aCL and a-β2GPI in 104 serum samples from patients without a history of thrombosis, pregnancy morbidity, tumours, infections and/or autoimmune diseases (30 males and 74 non-pregnant females). We tested all the commercial assays available in our regions (i.e. Orgentec Diagnostika, Aesku Diagnostics and Inova Diagnostics ELISA; CliA Zenit-RA and EliA Phadia Laboratory Systems). A further 30 serum samples, including 10 from healthy subjects, 10 from antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients and 10 from septic patients were assessed to investigate the analytical performance of the obtained cut-off limits. Reference range upper limits obtained with the commercial kits differ among assays and from the values reported by the manufacturer. Moreover, normal reference ranges calculated for IgG and IgM aCL differed from the arbitrary selected laboratory classification values suggested in the guidelines of 40 GPL and MPL.

Evaluation of a new set of automated chemiluminescense assays for anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies in the laboratory diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The laboratory diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the demonstration of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL): lupus anticoagulant (LAC) measured through coagulation assays, anticardiolipin IgG or IgM antibodies (aCL) and/or anti-β2glycoprotein I IgG or IgM antibodies (aβ2GPI), usually detected by ELISA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the diagnostic value of aCL and aβ2GPI measured by a new automated system using the chemiluminescence principle, the immunoanalyzer Zenit RA (Menarini).

RESULTS

Results of aCL and aβ2GPI were correlated with the clinical background of the patients and with results of ELISA (n=314). Correlated to the clinical background sensitivity/specificity ranged for aCL IgG between 7.5-45.2% / 54.2-98.8%, for aCL IgM 3.4-5.5% / 89.9-94%, for aβ2GPI IgG 5.5-25.3% / 75.6-100% and aβ2GPI IgM 3.4-4.8% / 89.9-92.3%, depending on the cut-off used. Sensitivity with manufacturer's cut-offs was comparable to ELISA, except for aβ2GPI IgG with a significantly lower sensitivity compared to ELISA (5.5% vs 11.6%). In the APS patient population (n=30) sensitivity of aCL IgG and aβ2GPI IgG was higher measured by ELISA compared to Zenit RA (46.7% vs 30.0%, and 46.7% vs 26.7%, respectively). Agreement between Zenit RA results and ELISA results for the four parameters was moderate (Kappa-values ranging 0.509-0.565). Sensitivity was 38.5%, 53.3%, 40% and 69.2% for aCL IgG, aCL IgM, aβ2GPI IgG and aβ2GPI IgM, respectively, applying the highest cut-off value for Zenit RA, raising towards 64.3%, 100%, 57.1%, for aCL IgG, aCL IgM, aβ2GPI IgG, respectively, in a APS patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

The new technology of chemiluminescense for measuring aPL showed good performance characteristics. Interpretation of results with a cut-off value associated with a good discrimination for disease, resulted in a lower sensitivity for the diagnosis of APS for aβ2GPI IgG measured by Zenit RA assays compared to ELISA; sensitivity for aCL IgG was comparable to ELISA. Specificity for all parameters was high and comparable for aCL and aβ2GPI.

Laboratory testing for the antiphospholipid syndrome: making sense of antiphospholipid antibody assays

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterised by a wide range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric related), associated with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialities, largely due to issues related to laboratory testing as well as the expanding range of reported clinical manifestations of APS. The laboratory issues include limitations in detailed knowledge by both clinical and laboratory personnel regarding the 'complete' range of available aPL tests, as well as ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardisation. aPL are identified using diverse laboratory procedures based on one of two distinct test processes, namely solid phase and liquid phase assays. The former includes anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ(2)GPI). The latter are centred on clot-based tests that are used to identify the so-called lupus anticoagulant (LA). This article will discuss: (i) issues related to laboratory testing for APS in terms of the currently available solid-phase and liquid-phase assays, and identifiable biases resulting from these tests usually being performed in different laboratories; (ii) current problems with calibration, standardisation and reproducibility of these assays; (iii) pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical considerations and ongoing initiatives for improvement; (iv) issues related to potential combinations/panels of available aPL tests; and (v) the entities of seropositive APS, seronegative APS and non-APS aPL-positivity. In doing so, this review will hopefully help bridge the two disciplines of haematology and immunology ('representing' liquid-phase and solid-phase aPL testing, respectively), by improving the understanding of those working in each of these disciplines of the merits and limitations of the assays performed in the other discipline, and encouraging inter-discipline cooperation in the reporting of aPL test results.

Antiphospholipid antibodies--we are not quite there yet

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome is predominantly made in the laboratory and depends on the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies in individuals with thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity. Correct diagnosis of the syndrome is imperative to prevent unnecessary long secondary thromboprophylaxis. Three antiphospholipid antibody subtypes are included in the classification criteria of the antiphospholipid syndrome: lupus anticoagulants, anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies. Only lupus anticoagulants are undisputedly associated with thrombosis, which is why the serological criteria of the antiphospholipid syndrome are under debate. All of the assays used to detect antiphospholipid antibodies are in need of better standardization, although progress has been made in the detection of lupus anticoagulants. The inconsistent association between both anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies and thrombosis is a cause for alarm. We are in need of better assays to detect those individuals at risk for thrombosis and population-based prospective studies to provide us with accurate risk assessments.

Evaluation of three commercial ELISA kits for anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies in the laboratory diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The laboratory criteria of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) include lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM.

METHODS

We evaluated three commercial ELISAs for aCL and aβ2GPI IgG and IgM: Asserachrom® ('Stago'), Bio-Rad ('BR') and the Bindazyme™ (the Binding Site, 'BS').

RESULTS

Results of all assays and of LAC were correlated with the clinical background (n=228). Sensitivity for Stago/BS/BR aCL IgG was 14%/15%/18%, for aCL IgM 1%/5%/4%, for aβ2GPI IgG 9%/10%/17% and for aβ2GPI IgM 4%/4%/3%. The specificity for Stago/BS/BR for all assays ranged from 86% to 98%. The positive predictive value (PPV) for Stago/BS/BR aCL IgG was 46%/52%/40%, for aCL IgM 8%/36%/19%, for aβ2GPI IgG 70%/67%/45% and for aβ2GPI IgM 23%/23%/20%. Combining LAC with aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies increased the sensitivity (Stago/BS/BR IgG: 26%/27%/31%, IgM: 22%/21%/26%) and PPV (Stago/BS/BR IgG: 41%/46%/36%, IgM: 34%/40%/36%). Comparing the diagnostic power of the tests, only Stago/BS aβ2GPI IgG had a Chi-square P-value lower than 0.05. The combination of LAC and IgG ELISAs of BS resulted in the lowest P-value (0.098) compared to the other combinations.

CONCLUSION

All evaluated ELISAs are a practical tool in the laboratory diagnosis of APS. The diagnostic performance shows slight differences between the ELISAs from the different manufacturers.

The antiphospholipid syndrome: a large elephant with many parts or an elusive chameleon disguised by many colours?

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by a range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric-related), together with the presence of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic and management challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialties, some 30 years after APS was first described as a discrete clinical entity. This is due to ongoing issues regarding nomenclature, the diagnosis of APS in individual patients, the expanding range of recognized clinical manifestations and of APS-related laboratory tests, and management issues in particular APS patient subgroups (including obstetric and catastrophic APS). In addition to the presence of appropriate clinical features, the diagnosis of APS fundamentally requires the finding of positive aPL test result(s), which is hampered by ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardization. This review focuses on ongoing dilemmas and issues related to clinical and laboratory aspects of APS including: (1) diagnostic challenges posed by the protean clinical manifestations of APS; (2) current nomenclature and recent proposals for revision of the 2006 international classification criteria; (3) an overview of some key issues related to aPL testing; (4) potential pitfalls of applying the APS classification criteria as diagnostic criteria; and (5) the controversial subgroups of seronegative APS and non-APS aPL positivity.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in critical illness

The antiphospholipid syndrome is defined by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with recurrent venous or arterial thromboembolism or pregnancy morbidity. Antithrombotic therapies are the mainstay of treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent thromboembolism. Among patients with antiphospholipid antibodies, the absolute risk of new thrombosis developing is low in healthy patients without previous thrombotic events. However, the risk of recurrent thrombosis appears to be high in patients with a history of arterial or venous thrombosis. Compared with placebo or untreated control, anticoagulation with warfarin administered to achieve an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 probably reduces the risk of recurrence of thrombotic events. Aspirin and moderate-intensity warfarin appear equally effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with a single positive antiphospholipid antibody test result and previous stroke. It is unknown how best to prevent first stroke in patients found to be persistently positive for the antiphospholipid syndrome. The catastrophic variant of the antiphospholipid syndrome is a condition characterized by multiple vascular occlusive events, usually affecting small vessels and evolving over a short period of time. This condition has a very high mortality rate. First-line treatment with therapeutic anticoagulation, corticosteroids, plasma exchange, and intravenous immunoglobulin seems to be effective in reducing mortality and risk of catastrophic thrombotic events in these patients. In conclusion, moderate-intensity warfarin is effective for preventing recurrent thrombotic events in patients with venous thrombosis. Aspirin appears to be as effective as moderate-intensity warfarin for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke and a single positive test result for antiphospholipid antibody. The optimal treatment of other clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome needs to be addressed in well-designed prospective studies.

Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome

The antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) is defined by the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with recurrent venous or arterial thromboembolism or pregnancy morbidity. Anti-thrombotic therapy is the mainstay of treatment given the high risk of recurrent thromboembolism that characterizes this condition. Despite the prothrombotic nature of APS, thrombocytopenia is present in a proportion of patients. which can complicate management and limit the use of antithrombotic therapy. The mechanism of APS-associated thrombocytopenia is multifactorial and its relation to thrombotic risk poorly characterized. However, the presence of thrombocytopenia does not appear to reduce thrombotic risk in patients with APS, who can develop thromboembolic complications necessitating antithrombotic treatment. In these cases, treatment of the thrombocytopenia may be necessary to facilitate administration of antithrombotic agents. Clinical trials have demonstrated that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies and venous thromboembolism should be treated with vitamin K antagonists (warfarin); that ischemic stroke may be treated with aspirin or warfarin; and that women with recurrent pregnancy loss should receive prophylactic-dose heparin and aspirin. However, application of these trial results to patients with APS-associated thrombocytopenia can be challenging since there are limited data on the optimal use of antithrombotic agents in this setting. Issues such as determining the platelet threshold at which antithrombotic agents can be safely used and managing patients with both bleeding and thromboembolic complications remain unresolved. Ultimately the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy, balanced against the severity of the thrombocytopenia and its potential bleeding risks, need to be assessed using an individualized patient approach.

Influence of different IgG anticardiolipin antibody cut-off values on antiphospholipid syndrome classification

BACKGROUND

While medium to high titers of anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, defined as >40 GPL units or >99th percentile, is a laboratory criteria for the 'definite' diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), agreement between the two cut-offs has not been validated.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the current aCL laboratory criterion by verifying the effect of the two cut-offs on APS classification.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Ninety aCL positive APS patients were selected on the basis of their GPL values above the 99th percentile (17.4 GPL), which was calculated by testing 100 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects.

RESULTS

A significant difference in the IgG positivity (P < 0.0001) was found between the APS laboratory profiles as 20 out of the 24 (83.3%) patients with single positivity (aCL alone), six out of the 23 (26.1%) with double positivity (aCL plus lupus anticoagulant or anti-beta(2)glycoprotein I), and none out of the 43 with triple positivity (aCL plus lupus anticoagulant and anti-beta(2)glycoprotein I) had titers between the 99th percentile and 40 GPL units. Moreover, the rate of aCL values between the 99th percentile and 40 GPL units was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in patients with pregnancy morbidity (73.7%) as compared to those with vascular thrombosis (16.9%) and those with both conditions (16.7%).

CONCLUSION

The 99th percentile cut-off level seems more sensitive than the >40 GPL value for APS classification, as it includes subjects with aCL positivity alone as well as patients with pregnancy morbidity.

Antiphospholipid antibodies: laboratory and pathogenetic aspects

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) constitute a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies that share the ability to bind phospholipids (PL) alone, protein-PL complexes, or PL-binding proteins. They have been detected in isolation, in association with autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and during the course of different infections. aPL have been associated with an array of clinical manifestations in virtually every organ, although deep vein and arterial thrombosis as well as pregnancy morbidity are predominant. The co-occurrence of these clinical findings with aPL constitutes the so-called antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). aPL can be detected by immunological methods [e.g., anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL)] or by functional methods that exploit the effect of aPL on blood coagulation [lupus anticoagulant (LA)]. Since aPL are heterogeneous, numerous immunological and coagulation assays have been developed. These assays have not been fully standardized, and, therefore, problems such as high interlaboratory variation are relatively frequent. Recently, recommendations have been published regarding LA and aCL testing. Not all aPL are pathogenic. However, when they are not associated with infections, they have a role in the pathogenesis of APS. Clinical and experimental data have shown that aPL exert their pathogenic activity by interfering with the function of coagulation factors, such as thrombin and factors X, XI and XII, and with the function of anticoagulant proteins of the protein C system. In addition, aPL interaction with platelets and endothelial cells induces a pro-adhesive activated phenotype.

The obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

The association of persistent presence of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies and thromboembolic events, (recurrent) pregnancy loss or both is termed antiphospholipid syndrome. Pregnancies in women with the syndrome should be regarded as at high-risk for complications. Optimal management consisting of close follow-up and pharmacological treatment can result in about 70-80% live births. Apart from the laboratory diagnosis of the syndrome and pathophysiology, this review will focus on treatment during pregnancy.

How we diagnose and treat thrombotic manifestations of the antiphospholipid syndrome: a case-based review

Antiphospholipid antibodies including anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulants, and anti–β2 glycoprotein-1–specific antibodies may identify patients at elevated risk of first or recurrent venous or arterial thromboembolism. Traditionally, published case series supplemented by anecdotal experience have formed the basis of management of patients with these autoantibodies. Over the past several years, studies have described the management of patients with key clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid antibodies, including patients with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. As a result, evidence-based treatment recommendations are possible for selected patients with, or at risk of, thrombosis in the setting of antiphospholipid antibodies. Unfortunately, most patients encountered in clinical practice do not correspond directly with those enrolled in clinical trials. For such patients, treatment recommendations are based on experience, extrapolation, and less rigorous evidence. This article proposes 5 cases typical of those found in clinical practice and provides recommendations for therapy focused on a series of clinical questions. Whenever possible, the recommendations are based on evidence; however, in many cases, insufficient evidence exists, so the recommendation is experiential.

The antiphospholipid syndrome

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune thrombophilic condition that is marked by the presence of antibodies that recognize phospholipid-binding proteins. The clinical manifestations of APS include vascular thrombosis and pregnancy complications, especially recurrent spontaneous miscarriages. This article provides an update on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to this disorder.

Consensus guidelines for anticardiolipin antibody testing

Despite the use of standardized GPL and MPL units, significant inter-laboratory and inter-method variation in anticardiolipin antibody (aCL) testing still exists, limiting the clinical utility and inter-laboratory portability of test results. This article reviews published and unpublished guidelines (some developed using consensus procedures) that can be used to improve various aspects of: (1) specimen collection; (2) aCL assay manufacture and testing procedures; (3) quality control; and (4) interpretation (including reporting) of results; and in doing so, improve the consistency of aCL results between different laboratories, assays and runs. However, there is a still a need for consensus guidelines that combine and deal with all of the aforementioned aspects of aCL testing and reporting.