A randomized clinical trial of high-intensity warfarin vs. conventional antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome (WAPS)

Dilemmas in the diagnosis and management of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by thrombosis (which may be venous, arterial, or microvascular) and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies. Although thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity are the main clinical criteria for a diagnosis of APS in the revised Sapporo (Sydney) criteria, recently published American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for APS have significantly refined the diagnostic algorithm to include a scoring system clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular thrombosis, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic). Diagnosis of APS is complicated by the fact that significant heterogeneity exists in patients' clinical presentation, underlying vascular risk factors, and methods of detecting antiphospholipid antibodies. Despite the autoimmune nature of APS, anticoagulation remains the main strategy for secondary prevention of thrombosis. Furthermore, optimal antithrombotic treatment in APS patients with arterial thrombosis remains controversial due to a paucity of data from randomized controlled studies. In this paper, we present 2 cases and highlight the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges they pose and how we approach them in the light of current evidence.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights into Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Manifestations

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a complex systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by a hypercoagulable state, leading to severe vascular thrombosis and obstetric complications. The 2023 ACR/EULAR guidelines have revolutionized the classification and understanding of APS, introducing broader diagnostic criteria that encompass previously overlooked cardiac, renal, and hematologic manifestations. Despite these advancements, diagnosing APS remains particularly challenging in seronegative patients, where traditional tests fail, yet clinical symptoms persist. Emerging non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies offer promising new diagnostic and management avenues for these patients. Managing APS involves a strategic balance of cardiovascular risk mitigation and long-term anticoagulation therapy, though the use of direct oral anticoagulants remains contentious due to varying efficacy and safety profiles. This article delves into the intricate pathogenesis of APS, explores the latest classification criteria, and evaluates cutting-edge diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies.

Rethinking antiphospholipid syndrome to guide future management and research

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) consists of thrombotic, non-thrombotic and obstetric clinical manifestations developing in individuals with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Although researchers have made progress in characterizing different clinical phenotypes of aPL-positive people, the current approach to clinical management is still mostly based on a 'one size fits all' strategy, which is derived from the results of a limited number of prospective, controlled studies. With the 2023 publication of the ACR-EULAR APS classification criteria, it is now possible to rethink APS, to lay the groundwork for subphenotyping through novel pathophysiology-informed approaches, and to set a future APS research agenda guided by unmet needs in clinical management.

Low recurrent thrombosis rates in single positive antiphospholipid syndrome regardless of type of anticoagulation

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by thrombosis and persistently positive tests for antiphospholipid antibodies or lupus anticoagulant (LAC). Triple-positive APS has the highest risk of recurrent thrombosis, but no studies have focused on recurrent thrombosis in patients with single-positive TAPS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with single-positive TAPS diagnosed at Lifespan Health System, Rhode Island, to determine the rates and risk factors for recurrent thrombosis. Between January 2001 and April 2022, 128 patients were assessed who had single-positive APS (LAC = 98, aCL = 21, aβ2GPI = 9) and who had been followed for a total of 1453.8 patient-years (median follow-up 3.04 years). The initial antithrombotic regimen was warfarin in 44 %, a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in 34 %, enoxaparin in 2 %, and no antithrombotic therapy or antiplatelet therapy only in 20 %. Recurrent thrombosis occurred in 16 (12.5 %) with a recurrent thrombosis rate of 3.08 per 100 patient-years. Systemic lupus erythematosus was the only variable significantly associated with recurrent thrombosis in a model adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and type of positive APS test. All 16 patients with recurrent thrombosis were initially treated with warfarin, and, at the time of recurrent thrombosis, 13 patients remained on warfarin and three were off anticoagulation. In conclusion, the recurrent thrombosis rate in single-positive APS is low, and not all patients with a single-positive test may need indefinite anticoagulation with warfarin. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm this finding and establish optimal anticoagulation regimens for low-risk TAPS.

Anticoagulant and non-anticoagulant therapy in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: old drugs and new treatment targets

In this review, we discuss the current evidence on classic and newer oral anticoagulant therapy, older drugs such as HCQ and statins, and new potential treatment targets in APS. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) remain the cornerstone treatment for thrombotic events in APS. In patients fulfilling criteria for definite APS presenting with a first venous thrombosis, treatment with VKAs with a target international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0-3.0 is recommended. In patients with arterial thrombosis, treatment with VKA with target INR 2.0-3.0 or 3.0-4.0 is recommended by recent guidelines, considering the individual's bleeding and thrombosis recurrence risk. A combination of VKAs and low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/daily) may also be considered. According to available evidence direct oral anticoagulants should be avoided in patients with arterial thrombosis and/or those with triple aPL positivity. Adjunctive treatment with HCQ and/or statins can be considered, especially in anticoagulation treatment-refractory APS. Potential targeted treatments in APS include B-cell targeting, complement inhibition, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition, IFN targeting, adenosine receptors agonists, CD38 targeting or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. The safety and efficacy of these treatment targets needs to be examined in well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Viewpoint: Provoked thrombosis in antiphospholipid syndrome

Unprovoked thrombosis (thrombosis occurring without an established environmental factor favouring the episode) is a classic feature of APS. In the general population, provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is clearly defined and has clinical and therapeutic differences compared with unprovoked VTE. Whether provoked VTE in the context of APS may lead to a limited treatment duration is not well established. Therefore, careful clinical and laboratory evaluation is needed to identify patients eligible for a limited duration of anticoagulation treatment after provoked VTE. Given the uncertainties of available data, the risks and benefits of treatment decisions should be clearly explained. Decisions should be shared by both the patient and physician. Cardiovascular risk factors are common in patients with APS with arterial thrombosis. There are insufficient data suggesting that cardiovascular risk factor control would allow the cessation of anticoagulation. In most instances, arterial thrombosis will require prolonged anticoagulants. A careful analysis of clinical characteristics and laboratory evaluation, particularly the aPL antibody profile, is needed to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Platelets and Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder characterised by thrombosis and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL): lupus anticoagulant and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2-glycoprotein I and anticardiolipin antibodies. APS carries significant morbidity for a relatively young patient population from recurrent thrombosis in any vascular bed (arterial, venous, or microvascular), often despite current standard of care, which is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Platelets have established roles in thrombosis at any site, and platelet hyperreactivity is clearly demonstrated in the pathophysiology of APS. Together with excess thrombin generation, platelet activation and aggregation are the common end result of all the pathophysiological pathways leading to thrombosis in APS. However, antiplatelet therapies play little role in APS, reserved as a possible option of low dose aspirin in addition to VKA in arterial or refractory thrombosis. This review outlines the current evidence and mechanisms for excessive platelet activation in APS, how it plays a central role in APS-related thrombosis, what evidence for antiplatelets is available in clinical outcomes studies, and potential future avenues to define how to target platelet hyperreactivity better with minimal impact on haemostasis.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

Unprovoked (or provoked by mild risk factors) venous thromboembolism (VTE) in young patients, VTE in uncommon sites, or cases of unexplained VTE recurrence may be positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and thus may be diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The evaluation of aPL is standardized using immunological tests for anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I. The determination of functional antibodies (lupus anticoagulant) is less standardized, especially in patients on anticoagulant treatment. Patients positive for all the three tests are at high risk of recurrence, which, in turn, might lead to chronic obstruction of pulmonary vessels (chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension). Randomized clinical trials have shown that triple-positive patients should be treated with vitamin K antagonists maintaining an international normalized ratio between 2 and 3. Whether patients with VTE and incomplete aPL profile can be treated with direct oral anticoagulants should be further investigated.

Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Unmet Needs and Review of the Literature

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) require long-term anticoagulation due to the high-thrombotic recurrence risk. Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) have been traditionally considered the standard of care in thrombotic APS. Nevertheless, the risk of recurrence persists with VKA. There are publications considering different intensities of anticoagulation with VKA; however, the standard-intensity anticoagulation (international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 3.0) is the most recommended. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the role of antiplatelet treatment in thrombotic APS. Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as an alternative to VKA for many indications. There are, however, discrepancies regarding the management with NOACs in thrombotic APS. In this review, we update the different clinical trials with NOACs in venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis and suggest how these patients should be managed in agreement with the expert panels. Although scarce data are published regarding the current role of NOACs in thrombotic APS, the clinical trials failed to demonstrate noninferiority of NOACs compared with VKA, especially in patients with triple antiphospholipid antibodies positivity and/or arterial thrombosis. Single or double antiphospholipid positivity should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In addition, we focus on different areas of uncertainty that still remain in thrombotic APS and NOACs. To summarize, emerging clinical trials are needed to provide robust data on the management of thrombotic APS.

Survey on antiphospholipid syndrome diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment in patients with ischemic stroke, other brain ischemic injury, or arterial thromboembolism in other sites: communication from ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment of patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)-associated acute ischemic stroke (AIS), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or other brain ischemic injury is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The survey goal was to capture variations in diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment of APS-associated ischemic stroke and related disorders to inform guidance and clinical trials to define optimal management.

METHODS

Professional colleagues, including key opinion leaders, were invited to complete a REDCap survey questionnaire initiated by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardisation Committee Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies. The survey data were tallied using simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There was generally good agreement on several aspects, including which patients to test for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), use of a lifelong vitamin K antagonist for AIS or recurrent TIA, and formal cognitive assessment for suspected cognitive impairment. There was less agreement on other aspects, including aPL testing for brain ischemic injury other than AIS/TIA or if an alternative cause for AIS or TIA exists; choice of aPL tests, their timing, and age cutoff; the aPL phenotype to trigger antithrombotic treatment; management for patent foramen ovale; antithrombotic treatment for first TIA or white matter hyperintensities; head magnetic resonance imaging specifications; and low-molecular-weight heparin dosing/anti-Xa monitoring in pregnancy. The survey highlighted that approximately 25% practice at dedicated APS clinics and <50% have a multidisciplinary team structure for patients with APS.

CONCLUSION

Much of the variation in practice reflects the lack of evidence-based recommendations. The survey results should inform the development of a more uniform multidisciplinary consensus approach to diagnosis and antithrombotic treatment.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome: State of the Art of Clinical Management

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

A Patient with Recurrent Strokes: Approach to Coagulopathy

Despite anticoagulation recommendations, patients may present with recurrent events. While medication adherence is always a concern, assessment of anticoagulation failure demands a systematic approach, taking into account the potential limitations of anticoagulants and a review of differential diagnoses for comorbidities. We illustrate our approach in a case presentation.

Antithrombotic therapy in antiphospholipid syndrome with arterial thrombosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction

The optimal secondary thromboprophylactic strategies for patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and arterial thrombosis remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of various antithrombotic strategies in APS with arterial thrombosis.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 30 September 2022, with no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria for eligible studies were as follows: inclusion of APS patients with arterial thrombosis, treatment with either antiplatelet agents, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), or a combination of these therapies, and reporting of recurrent thrombotic events.

Results

We conducted a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) involving 13 studies with a total of 719 participants, comprising six randomized and seven non-randomized studies. In comparison to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), the combined use of antiplatelet and warfarin demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent overall thrombosis, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.41 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.85). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) showed a lower risk of recurrent arterial thrombosis compared to SAPT although the difference did not reach statistical significance, with an RR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.08 to 1.07). DOAC was associated with a significant increase in the risk of recurrent arterial thrombosis, with an RR of 4.06 (95% CI 1.33 to 12.40) when compared to SAPT. There was no significant difference in major bleeding among various antithrombotic strategies.

Discussion

Based on this NMA, the combination of warfarin and antiplatelet therapy appears to be an effective approach in preventing recurrent overall thrombosis in APS patients with a history of arterial thrombosis. While DAPT may also show promise in preventing recurrent arterial thrombosis, further studies are needed to confirm its efficacy. Conversely, the use of DOACs was found to significantly increase the risk of recurrent arterial thrombosis.

The ABCs of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a thromboinflammatory syndrome characterized by thrombotic, microvascular, obstetric, or non-thrombotic events in the setting of persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), namely anticardiolipin antibody (aCL), anti-β2 glycoprotein-I antibody (aβ2GPI), and lupus anticoagulant (LA). The diagnosis of APS requires careful assessment of the aPL profile, the clinical phenotype, and additional risk factors. The standard management of aPL-related thrombosis is anticoagulation, which is not effective for microvascular and non-thrombotic events. In parallel to our improved understanding of aPL-related mechanisms, the role of immunosuppression has been increasingly investigated. In this review, we summarize the basic concepts and future perspectives in APS.

Antiphospholipid syndrome management: a 2023 update and practical algorithm-based approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired thrombo-inflammatory disease that has morbid and sometimes devastating effects on patients and their families. This review will discuss the most recent international societal treatment guidelines and propose practical management algorithms for various APS sub-types.

RECENT FINDINGS

APS represents a disease spectrum. Although thrombosis and pregnancy morbidities are traditional hallmarks of APS, a variety of extra-criteria clinical phenotypes can often be seen, which makes clinical management more challenging. Primary APS thrombosis prophylaxis should take a risk-stratified approach. Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or heparin/low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) remain the preferred treatment for secondary APS thrombosis prophylaxis, some international society guidelines support the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in certain circumstances. Careful monitoring and individualized obstetric care with the use of aspirin and heparin/LMWH will improve pregnancy outcomes among pregnant individuals with APS. Treatment of microvascular and catastrophic APS remains challenging. While the addition of various immunosuppressive agents is often utilized, further systemic evaluations of their use are warranted before definitive recommendations can be made. Several new therapeutic strategies are on the horizon that might enable more personalized and targeted APS management in the near future.

SUMMARY

Although the knowledge of APS pathogenesis has grown in recent years, the management principles and strategies are largely unchanged. There is an unmet need for evaluating pharmacological agents, beyond anticoagulants, that target diverse thromboinflammatory pathways.

Antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid antibodies, and stroke

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a prothrombotic autoimmune disease with heterogeneous clinicopathological manifestations and is a well-established cause of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA), particularly in younger patients. There is growing recognition of a wider spectrum of APS-associated cerebrovascular lesions, including white matter hyperintensities, cortical atrophy, and infarcts, which may have clinically important neurocognitive sequalae. Diagnosis of APS-associated AIS/TIA requires expert review of clinical and laboratory information. Management poses challenges, given the potential for substantial morbidity and recurrent thrombosis, additional risk conferred by conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and limited evidence base regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention. In this review, we summarize key features of APS-associated cerebrovascular disorders, with focus on clinical and laboratory aspects of diagnostic evaluation. The current status of prognostic markers is considered. We review the evidence base for antithrombotic treatment in APS-associated stroke and discuss uncertainties, including the optimal intensity of anticoagulation and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants. Clinical practice recommendations are provided, covering antithrombotic treatment, supportive management, and options for anticoagulant-refractory cases, and we highlight the benefits of adopting a considered, multidisciplinary team approach.

Evolution of Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune prothrombotic disease characterized by thrombosis and/or pregnancy complications caused by antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). The history of APS can be traced back to observations made during screening programs for syphilis conducted in the mid-20th century, with identification of patients with the so-called biological false-positive serological reactions for syphilis. Initial observation linking aPL with recurrent miscarriages was first reported more than 40 years ago. Since then, our understanding of the pathogenesis and management of APS has evolved markedly. Although APS is an autoimmune disease, anticoagulation mainly with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) rather than immunomodulation, is the treatment of choice for thrombotic APS. Direct acting oral anticoagulants are inferior to VKAs, especially those with triple-positive APS and arterial thrombosis. Inflammation, complement activation, and thrombosis in the placenta may contribute to pathogenesis of obstetric APS. Heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin, and low-dose aspirin represent the treatments of choice for women with obstetric complications. Increasingly, immunomodulatory agents such as hydroxychloroquine for thrombotic and obstetric APS are being used, especially in patients who are refractory to present standard treatment.

Antiphospholipid syndrome: advances in diagnosis, pathogenesis, and management

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a thrombo-inflammatory disease propelled by circulating autoantibodies that recognize cell surface phospholipids and phospholipid binding proteins. The result is an increased risk of thrombotic events, pregnancy morbidity, and various other autoimmune and inflammatory complications. Although antiphospholipid syndrome was first recognized in patients with lupus, the stand alone presentation of antiphospholipid syndrome is at least equally common. Overall, the diagnosis appears to affect at least one in 2000 people. Studies of antiphospholipid syndrome pathogenesis have long focused on logical candidates such as coagulation factors, endothelial cells, and platelets. Recent work has shed light on additional potential therapeutic targets within the innate immune system, including the complement system and neutrophil extracellular traps. Vitamin K antagonists remain the mainstay of treatment for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome and, based on current data, appear superior to the more targeted direct oral anticoagulants. The potential role of immunomodulatory treatments in antiphospholipid syndrome management is receiving increased attention. As for many systemic autoimmune diseases, the most important future direction is to more precisely identify mechanistic drivers of disease heterogeneity in pursuit of unlocking personalized and proactive treatments for patients.

Thromboplastin calibration revisited to look for possible revision of the World Health Organization recommendations

BACKGROUND

Thromboplastin calibration is essential to determine the international sensitivity index required to calculate the international normalized ratio (INR). The procedure for calibration recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) calls for the selection of patients on stable anticoagulation in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 INR. These patients are difficult to be recruited as the conventional therapeutic interval for warfarin is 2.0 to 3.0. A possible solution could be including patients with less intense anticoagulation in the calibration.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the impact of this amended procedure on the parameters of calibration.

METHODS

Eight data sets from previous calibrations of a rabbit thromboplastin that included patients on anticoagulation as required by WHO were used for this pilot study. Parameters of calibration as determined by the full data sets are identified as "full calibrations" and are considered reference. Each of the data sets were used to recalculate the calibration parameters after including patients with INRs of <4.0, <3.5, or <3.0, which were identified as "trimmed calibrations" and compared with those from the full calibrations.

RESULTS

There was marginal variation of the international sensitivity index, CV, and INR that can be hardly of practical significance. CV was the most affected parameter, which increased from the full to the trimmed <3.0 calibration, but never exceeded the 3% cutoff value recommended by WHO.

CONCLUSIONS

Should the results of this pilot study be confirmed for the calibration of other thromboplastins, revision of the WHO recommendations to include patients with INR from 1.5 to 4.0 is warranted.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndromes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 9, 2022. The 2 main efficacy outcomes were a composite of arterial thrombotic events and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Random effects models with inverse variance were used.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 253 studies. Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included (mean control-arm time-in-therapeutic-range 60%). All had proper random sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment. Overall, the use of DOACs compared with VKAs was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (OR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.87-15.75; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), especially stroke, and the composite of arterial thrombotic events or VTE (OR: 4.46; 95% CI: 1.12-17.84; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). The odds of subsequent VTE (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.31-4.55; P = 0.79, I2 = 0%), or major bleeding (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.42-2.47; P = 0.97; I2 = 0%) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome randomized to DOACs compared with VKAs appear to have increased risk for arterial thrombosis. No significant differences were observed between patients randomized to DOACs vs VKAs in the risk of subsequent VTE or major bleeding.

Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by the persistent positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLA) together with thrombosis or obstetrical complications. Despite their recognized predominant role, aPLA are not sufficient to induce the development of thrombosis and a second hit has been proposed to be necessary. The mainstay of treatment of APS is anticoagulant therapy. However, its optimal intensity in different presentations of the disease remains undefined. Moreover, decision on which patients with aPLA would benefit from an antithrombotic prophylaxis and its optimal intensity are challenging because of the lack of stratification tools for the risk of thrombosis. Finally, decision on the optimal type of anticoagulant drug is also complex because the central pathway responsible for the development of thrombosis is so far unknown and should be carried out on an individual basis after a careful evaluation of the clinical and laboratory features of the patient. This review addresses the epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and management of thrombosis and obstetrical complications in APS, with a special focus on the role of direct oral anticoagulants.

Research trends and frontiers on antiphospholipid syndrome: A 10-year bibliometric analysis (2012-2021)

Objectives: A growing body of studies related to antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) have been published in recent years. Nevertheless, there is a lack of visualized and systematic analysis in the literature on APS. Hence, this study sought to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify research status and discover frontiers in the field. Methods: Articles and reviews concerning APS were acquired from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. CiteSpace, VOSviewer and a bibliometric online analysis platform were employed to conduct a visualization and knowledge-map analysis. Results: A total of 1,390 publications regarding APS were identified. Globally, Italy contributed the most publications. The University of Padua was the most productive institution. Lupus ranked first in both the most published and most co-cited journals. Savino Sciascia and Spiros Miyakis were the most prolific and most co-cited authors, respectively. "Vitamin K antagonists (VKA)" and "immunoglobulin A (IgA)" were current research foci. Burst analysis of keywords suggested that "neutrophil extracellular trap (NET)," "direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)," "open label," "outcome," "hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)," and "arterial thrombosis (AT)" were significant future research frontiers. Conclusion: The scientific literature on APS has increased steadily in the past 10 years. The clinical studies on the treatment and mechanism research of APS are recognized as promising research hotspots in the domain of APS. The research status and trends of APS publications from the bibliometric perspective can provide a practical guide and important reference for subsequent studies by researchers and physicians in the domain.

The use of fondaparinux and rituximab for recurrent thrombotic events in antiphospholipid syndrome

Limited evidence exists to guide the management of recurrent thrombosis occurring despite therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). In this case series, fondaparinux, with or without an antiplatelet agent, provided an effective and safe option in three patients with thrombotic APS, all two triple and one single positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, who had recurrent venous and/or arterial thromboembolism. Rituximab was also used in all patients. Recurrent events occurred despite therapeutic anticoagulation, including at high-intensity, with warfarin and subsequent low-molecular-weight heparin. There were no major bleeding events. Adjunctive therapies used for thrombosis included catheter-directed thrombolysis and rituximab.

Progress in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) has a broad spectrum of subtypes with diverse severities and prognoses. Ischemic and inflammatory mechanisms, including autoantibodies and cytokine-mediated pathological processes, are key components of the pathogenesis of NPSLE. Additional brain-intrinsic elements (such as the brain barrier and resident microglia) are also important facilitators of NPSLE. An improving understanding of NPSLE may provide further options for managing this disease. The attenuation of neuropsychiatric disease in mouse models demonstrates the potential for novel targeted therapies. Conventional therapeutic algorithms include symptomatic, anti-thrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are only supported by observational cohort studies, therefore performing controlled clinical trials to guide further management is essential and urgent. In this review, we aimed to present the latest pathogenetic mechanisms of NPSLE and discuss the progress in its management.

Thromboembolic Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS): Efficacy and Safety of Different Anticoagulants-Results of the APSantiCO Registry

Background: The particular challenge in dealing with patients with thromboembolic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is to establish an adequate therapy regime, as patients suffer from an increased risk of relapse despite antithrombotic treatment (ATT). Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the standard medication of choice. The current data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in APS patients remain limited. Methods: The results of the retrospective APSantiCO registry are presented. In 80 patients with APS, the efficacy and safety of different ATT regimens were analyzed. Results: At the time of inclusion, 43.8% of patients were treated with VKA and 36.3% with DOAC. Medication regimes changed several times and 279 treatment phases were further analyzed with a total treatment length of 7529 months. The incidence of recurrent arterial thrombosis was significantly larger in the DOAC group compared with the VKA group (p < 0.001), while the incidence of recurrent venous thrombosis was comparable between both groups, as was the incidence of bleedings. Heavy menstrual bleeding was the most frequently observed bleeding complication. Conclusions: The data suggest that DOAC may be an alternative to VKA for APS patients with venous thromboembolism, while VKA should be used in APS-related arterial thrombosis.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

Methods

We performed a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with APS.

Results

Five RCTs involving 648 patients with APS (330 in DOAC-treated and 318 in control groups) were included in the meta-analysis. Among the patients included in the analysis, 29 (8.8%) patients experienced recurrent thrombosis in the DOAC treatment group, and 10 patients (3.1%) had thrombosis recurrence in the warfarin treatment group, resulting in a higher incidence in DOAC-treated than in the warfarin-treated groups [odds ratio (OR) = 2.163, 95% CI = 0.985–4.748, p = 0.055]. Incidence of arterial thrombosis was significantly higher in DOAC-treated patients than in warfarin-treated patients (OR = 5.168, 95% CI = 1.567–17.04, p = 0.007). Stroke and thrombosis occurrences were significantly higher in the triple positivity group than in the warfarin therapy group (OR = 12.03, 95% CI = 2.249–64.36, p = 0.004; OR = 2.940, 95% CI = 1.016–8.504, p = 0.047). However, venous thrombosis occurrences did not differ significantly between the DOAC-treated and warfarin-treated groups. There were no significant differences between the DOAC and warfarin groups in terms of any bleeding, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and all-cause mortality.

Conclusion

DOACs were associated with higher rates of arterial thrombosis than warfarin in patients with APS, especially in the triple-positive group. However, a higher risk of recurrent venous thrombosis was not found in APS patients treated with DOACs compared to those treated with warfarin.

CoaguChek® XS versus standard laboratory prothrombin time for anticoagulant monitoring in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The standard of care for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Prothrombin time, and its corresponding international normalized ratio (INR), is the laboratory test routinely performed to assess anticoagulation. Self-management of VKA therapy using point-of-care (POC) devices seems to be an attractive option.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of a POC device (CoaguChek XS) in APS patients by comparing it with venous laboratory INR. Furthermore, we analyzed whether other clinical and laboratory features could interfere with the CoaguChek XS results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-center cross-sectional study with 94 APS patients from a tertiary rheumatology clinic performed from August 2014 to March 2015. The comparison between CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR results was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r) followed by the Bland-Altman test. A paired t-test was also applied. A difference of up to ±0.5 INR unit between the two systems was considered clinically acceptable.

RESULTS

The mean CoaguChek-INR was 2.94 ± 1.41 and venous laboratory INR was 2.43±0.86, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.95. Categorizing INR values in ranges (INR <2, INR 2-3, INR 3-4, and INR >4), we found that the INR >4 group presented a lower correlation (r = 0.64) compared to the other ranges (p < 0.05). Although both methods were highly correlated, CoaguChek XS showed higher values than the venous laboratory INR, with an increased average of 0.42 ± 0.54. Therefore, we proposed a simple linear regression model to predict the venous laboratory INR values, using results obtained from CoaguChek XS. A difference ≤0.5 INR unit between the two systems was observed in 57.4% of patients, and the aPL profile did not influence the results.

CONCLUSION

Although CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR demonstrated a good linear correlation in the group of INR ≤4, extra caution should be taken in APS patients, since a reasonable proportion of patients can present differences in INR results that are not acceptable. We do not recommend routine POC in APS patients.

Regional anaesthesia in patients on antithrombotic drugs: Joint ESAIC/ESRA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Bleeding is a potential complication after neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. The risk is increased in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. This joint guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia aims to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations and suggestions on how to reduce the risk of antithrombotic drug-induced haematoma formation related to the practice of regional anaesthesia and analgesia.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed, examining seven drug comparators and 10 types of clinical intervention with the outcome being peripheral and neuraxial haematoma. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies and for formulating recommendations. A Delphi process was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were limited in number and quality and the certainty of evidence was assessed to be GRADE C throughout. Forty clinical practice statements were formulated. Using the Delphi-process, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 57.5% of recommendations and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 42.5%.

DISCUSSION

Specific time intervals should be observed concerning the adminstration of antithrombotic drugs both prior to, and after, neuraxial procedures or those peripheral nerve blocks with higher bleeding risk (deep, noncompressible). These time intervals vary according to the type and dose of anticoagulant drugs, renal function and whether a traumatic puncture has occured. Drug measurements may be used to guide certain time intervals, whilst specific reversal for vitamin K antagonists and dabigatran may also influence these. Ultrasound guidance, drug combinations and bleeding risk scores do not modify the time intervals. In peripheral nerve blocks with low bleeding risk (superficial, compressible), these time intervals do not apply.

CONCLUSION

In patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, practitioners must consider the bleeding risk both before and after nerve blockade and during insertion or removal of a catheter. Healthcare teams managing such patients must be aware of the risk and be competent in detecting and managing any possible haematomas.

Efficacy of a hypolipid diet in patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome with dyslipidemia: a prospective study

Although dyslipidemia is associated with poorer prognosis in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the management of lipid disorders can be challenging. While statins may increase the bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation, the effectiveness of hypolipid diet (HD) has not yet been established in patients with autoimmune disorders. In this study, we evaluated whether HD is associated with decreases in cholesterol levels in patients with thrombotic primary APS (t-PAPS) and dyslipidemia. Nutritional and lipid profiles were assessed before HD was initiated (baseline) and after 3 and 6 months with HD. A 24-h dietary recall was applied to assess the adherence to the diet. Forty-four patients were included, mean age was 43 years (± 12.93) and 65% were female. After HD was started, the intake of carbohydrates, lipids, saturated fats and cholesterol decreased, whereas dietary fiber intake increased. Levels of total cholesterol (TC) and non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) decreased after 3 and 6 months of HD, as compared to baseline (P = 0.007 and P = 0.008). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values did not change during the study period. The mean body mass index (BMI) decreased from 28.4 to 27.8 kg/m2 after six months of HD (p < 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, the effects of HD were more pronounced in patients with high TC, LDL-C or non-HDL-C levels at baseline and in those without obesity or hypertension. Nutritional intervention is feasible among t-PAPS and could be an alternative therapy to modulate lipid metabolism in this population.

Clinical Management of Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Thrombotic manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome are often a therapeutic dilemma and challenge. Despite our increasing knowledge of this relatively new disease, many issues remain widely unknown and controversial. In this review, we summarise the latest literature and guidelines on the management of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome. These include the laboratory assays involved in antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) testing, the use of direct oral anticoagulants in secondary prevention, management of recurrent thrombosis, individuals with isolated aPL, and catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome. Treatment aims to prevent the potentially fatal and often disabling complications of APS with antithrombotic and cardiovascular risks prevention strategies. Some insights and updates on topical issues in APS are provided. We also include our current practice, which we believe is the pragmatic approach based on the currently available evidence.

Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial

The primary outcome, stroke, occurred in 6 of 23 patients randomized to apixaban compared with 0 of 25 patients randomized to warfarin.

This study with limitations suggests that apixaban is not an equitable substitute for warfarin to prevent thrombosis among TAPS patients.

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by venous, arterial, or microvascular thrombosis. Patients with TAPS merit indefinite anticoagulation, and warfarin has historically been the standard treatment. Apixaban is an oral factor Xa inhibitor anticoagulant that requires no dose adjustment or monitoring. The efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin for TAPS patients remain unknown. This multicenter prospective randomized open-label blinded endpoint study assigned anticoagulated TAPS patients to apixaban or warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2-3) for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically overt thrombosis and vascular death. Apixaban was first given at 2.5 mg twice daily. Two protocol changes were instituted based on recommendations from the data safety monitoring board. After the twenty-fifth patient was randomized, the apixaban dose was increased to 5 mg twice daily, and after the thirtieth patient was randomized, subjects with prior arterial thrombosis were excluded. Primary outcomes were adjudicated by independent experts blinded to treatment allocation. Patients randomized between 23 February 2015 and 7 March 2019 to apixaban (n = 23) or warfarin (n = 25) were similar. Among the components of the primary efficacy outcome, only stroke occurred in 6 of 23 patients randomized to apixaban compared with 0 of 25 patients randomized to warfarin. The study ended prematurely after the forty-eighth patient was enrolled. Conclusions from our study are limited due to protocol modifications and low patient accrual. Despite these limitations, our results suggest that apixaban may not be routinely substituted for warfarin to prevent recurrent thrombosis (especially strokes) among patients with TAPS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02295475.

Acute Neurologic Manifestations of Systemic Immune-Mediated Diseases

Systemic autoimmune diseases can affect the peripheral and central nervous system. In this review, we outline the common inpatient consultations for patients with neurological symptoms from rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren's syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis, immunoglobulin G4-related disease, Behçet's disease, giant cell arteritis, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis, eosinophilic granulomatosis, polyarteritis nodosa, and ankylosing spondylitis. We discuss the symptoms, diagnostic strategies, and treatment options.

Loss of antiphospholipid antibody positivity post-thrombosis in SLE

Background/Purpose

Loss of positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies has been observed in clinical practice post-thrombosis in patients with SLE with secondary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Our study defined the frequency of this loss and the duration before positivity recurred.

Methods

In this prospective study, patients with SLE having at least two positive antiphospholipid markers prior to thrombosis and at least 1 year of follow-up after thrombosis were included. Antiphospholipid markers included lupus anticoagulant (dilute Russell viper venom test >45 s followed by mixing and confirmatory tests) and/or anticardiolipin titre (aCL IgG ≥20, aCL IgM ≥20 and/or aCL IgA ≥20). The percentage of visits with positive antiphospholipid markers after thrombosis was calculated. For patients with a negative antiphospholipid marker any time after thrombosis, survival estimates were performed to calculate the time to return of antiphospholipid positivity.

Results

In APS due to SLE, complete loss of antiphospholipid positivity post-thrombosis was up to 41% for aCL IgG, 51% for IgM and 50% for IgA, but only 20% for those with lupus anticoagulant. Of those who at some point lost aCL IgG or became negative for lupus anticoagulant, the majority (60% and 76%, respectively) reacquired the antibody within 5 years. In contrast, of those who lost aCL IgM or IgA, fewer reacquired it within 5 years (37% and 17%, respectively).

Conclusion

Intermittent positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies is present in APS due to SLE. These fluctuations make it difficult to decide on length of anticoagulation. Lupus anticoagulant is more likely to persist post-thrombosis.

A Difficult and Rare Case of Warfarin Refractory Antiphospholipid Syndrome Presenting With Catastrophic Antiphospholipid Syndrome Complicated by Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is managed with warfarin for secondary prophylaxis in patients who have had a thrombotic event in the past. Warfarin has been deemed superior to novel oral anticoagulants in preventing venous and arterial thrombosis in conjunction with aspirin. The catastrophic variant of APS (CAPS) is very rarely reported, especially in those who have been on a therapeutic dose of warfarin therapy. We present a rare case of CAPS in a patient with a history of APS who had been on a therapeutic dose of warfarin along with aspirin therapy. The patient is a 70-year-old male with APS diagnosed 30 years prior when he presented with a pulmonary embolism; aspirin was added to warfarin two years ago when he had a cerebrovascular accident (CVA). He presented to the hospital with acute onset right-sided weakness and aphasia, left lower extremity pain. He had ischemic CVA, acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), acute renal failure with a creatinine of 2.8, anemia with hemoglobin of 3.8, gastrointestinal bleed (GIB) on EGD, with INR of 3.48 cardiolipin IgM of >140g/L. He was transfused packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and provided Vit K. Subsequently, he had a cardiac arrest and was intubated and placed on a mechanical ventilator. Given simultaneous multiorgan involvement, acute arterial and venous thrombosis, the patient was diagnosed with CAPS. The patient was started on high-dose dexamethasone, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and underwent plasma exchange with significant improvement in symptoms, laboratory parameters; and was extubated with near normalization of his speech and motor deficits. He was discharged on enoxaparin and prednisone with sustained clinical improvement two months following discharge. This patient was on the recommended treatment for APS. However, he had presented with a CAPS. This is the first reported case of warfarin refractory CAPS. This case highlights that there might be a subgroup of the population in whom warfarin is not an effective form of treatment modality for an unknown cause, and in fact, it could potently expose a patient to the adverse events related to warfarin therapy as it did in our patient who had significant GIB. This case also highlights the uncommon scenario of spontaneous CAPS with no inciting event as previously reported in the literature, such as infection, recent surgeries, or trauma.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the International Guidelines

Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) requires long-term anticoagulation to prevent recurrent thrombosis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly used in APS patients, but contradictory guidelines recommendations on their use do exist. We performed a systematic review of literature including studies investigating the role of DOACs in APS patients. At this aim, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines. We identified 14 studies which investigated the use of DOACs in patients with APS, of which 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 1 post-hoc analysis of 3 RCTs, 7 case series and 3 cohort studies (2 prospective and 1 retrospective). Among DOACs, rivaroxaban was the most used (n = 531), followed by dabigatran (n = 90) and apixaban (n = 46). Regarding guidelines indications, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines recommend against the use of DOACs in all APS patients. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), British Society for Haematology (BSH), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidance provided more detailed indications stating that warfarin should be the first-choice treatment but DOACs may be considered in patients (1) already on a stable anticoagulation with a DOAC, (2) with low-quality anticoagulation by warfarin, (3) unwilling/unable to undergo INR monitoring, (4) with contraindications or serious adverse events under warfarin. Patients with arterial APS or triple positivity should be treated with warfarin while venous APS with single or double positivity may be candidate to DOACs, but high-quality studies are needed.

Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Real Clinical Practice Based on Health Care Professional Survey

Aim. To assess the duration of the anticoagulant treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in various categories of patients in real clinical practice through survey of practitioners, as well as correspondence of the duration with current clinical guidelines.

Material and methods. Data obtained from electronic survey of practicing surgeons as part of a commercial brand assessment (Brand Adoption Monitor) was studied. Survey was carried out by the "Validata” analytical agency at the request and with the financial support of Bayer. Inpatient and outpatient vascular surgeons, as well as general outpatient surgeons were invited to complete the electronic questionnaire. The number of interviewed specialists was 100: 50 inpatient vascular surgeons and 50 outpatient specialists, among whom the share of vascular surgeons (phlebologists, angi-ologists) was about 20%. The study was completed in 20 cities of Russia with a population of at least 200,000 people from all federal districts except the North Caucasus and the Republic of Crimea. The selection criteria for participants were: work experience in the specialty ≥3 years, work experience at the current organization >6 months, ≥5 patients with VTE during in the last month.

Results. In total, 104 doctors were surveyed during the period from December 11, 2019 to January 20, 2020, of which 50 were inpatient vascular surgeons and 54 were from outpatient setting. According to the survey of vascular surgeons in hospitals, 75% (6 [5;10]) of patients were hospitalized with a primary episode of VTE and 25% (2 [1;4]) with a recurrent thrombotic event. In an outpatient surgeon, 27.5% (3 [2;5]) of patients were treated in an outpatient setting without hospitalization, 34.7% (3 [2;5]) came to an appointment immediately after discharge from the hospital and 38.8% (2 [1;4]) were a repeat visit regarding a previous VTE. Most often, surgeons observed episodes of clinically unprovoked VTE in 27.3% of cases, thrombotic events provoked by major transient risk factors were 12.2%, event provoked by small transient risk factors were 13.3% and events provoked by small persistent risk factors were 12.6%, while cancer-associated thrombosis represented 13.5%. Most surgeons chose to prescribe anticoagulant therapy beyond 3 months. About half of the specialists prescribed therapy for a year or longer for cancer-associated thrombosis and recurrent VTE. When treating the first episode of clinically unprovoked VTE, about half of the respondents chose anticoagulation for a period of 3 to 6 months. About 60% of specialists prescribed anticoagulant therapy for a period of 3 to 6 months to patients with minor transient or persistent risk factors and patients with VTE provoked by major transient risk factor (trauma or surgery).

Conclusion. Correspondence of the duration of anticoagulant therapy in real clinical practice with the international clinical guidelines varies within 450% range and, on average, does not exceed 30%. This discrepancy was both in situations when the duration of therapy was lower than recommended, but also in situations when treatment extension would not have been recommended.

Coexistent antiphospholipid syndrome and myeloproliferative neoplasm

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. The optimal management of patients with coexistent APS and MPN has not been defined. A single centre and systematic literature review of patients with coexistent APS and MPN was performed. Cases were divided into two groups based on whether they met international consensus criteria for APS. Of the 12 studies identified, eight were excluded (leaving five of a total 54 patients), as although antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) were documented, the diagnosis of APS was not conclusively demonstrated. Another ten patients with definite APS were identified at our centre. Fifteen patients (ten females, five males) were therefore included in this analysis (eleven definite APS and four highly likely), median age 44 (range: 13-71) years. Nine had polycythaemia vera and six, essential thrombocythaemia. Thirteen of the 15 patients (86.7%) had thrombotic APS (seven with initial venous events and six arterial) and two (13.3%) had obstetric APS. Nine patients were single-positive, and six double-positive for aPL. None were triple aPL-positive. Four patients at our centre had recurrent thrombotic/obstetric events, including while on anticoagulation/antiplatelet treatment.

How I treat anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome

The standard treatment of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is lifelong oral anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), generally warfarin. A minority of patients with APS rethrombose despite seemingly adequate anticoagulation. These patients are deemed anticoagulant refractory. The management of anticoagulant-refractory APS is largely empirical and extrapolated from other clinically similar situations. Further options include increased VKA anticoagulation intensity or alternative antithrombotic strategies, including low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, the addition of antiplatelet therapy, and consideration of vascular options. Patients with anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS may have APS-associated thrombocytopenia, which necessitates balancing the risk of recurrent thrombosis vs bleeding to achieve adequate anticoagulation. The multiple mechanisms involved in the generation of the thrombotic phenotype in APS suggest that anticoagulation alone may not control thrombosis. Thus, other modalities, including adjunctive treatment (hydroxychloroquine, statins, and vitamin D) for APS-related thrombosis, merit consideration, as do immunomodulatory therapy and complement inhibition. Patients with APS may have coexistent systemic lupus erythematosus, which adds to the complexity of managing their thromboembolic disease. However, with attention to detail and judicious application of the limited data, it is possible to minimize the morbidity resulting from anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS. Multicenter studies are required to guide the sequence of interventions and their comparative efficacy in patients with anticoagulant-refractory thrombotic APS.

Arterial Thrombosis in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Review and Meta-Analysis

There is a scarcity of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antithrombotic regimens for secondary prevention of arterial thrombosis (AT) in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). We reviewed different antithrombotic regimens used for this purpose. We searched for studies on management of AT in APS on PubMed and Web of Science. Eleven studies (5 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 3 retrospective cohort studies) comparing different regimens and reporting outcomes specifically for patients with index AT events were identified. Treatments were vitamin K antagonists (VKA; 9 studies), non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC; 3 studies), single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT; 7 studies), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; 2 studies), and VKA combined with SAPT (4 studies). We performed a meta-analysis for the outcomes: recurrent AT, any (arterial or venous) recurrent thromboembolism, and major bleeding. Recurrent AT was reduced with VKA plus SAPT versus VKA (risk ratio [RR]: 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.85) and with DAPT versus SAPT (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.99). Any recurrent thromboembolism was reduced with VKA plus SAPT versus VKA alone (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.24-0.69) and versus SAPT alone (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.13-0.96). There were no significant differences between other treatments for thromboembolism and for none of the comparisons regarding major bleeding. In a sensitivity analysis, excluding low-quality studies, VKA was more effective than NOAC to prevent recurrent AT (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.07-0.93). Combined antithrombotic therapy might be more effective than single agents as secondary prophylaxis in APS with AT, and does not seem to compromise with safety, but the quality of evidence is generally low. NOACs should be avoided for patients with APS and AT.