Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies with solid phase assays: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Establishment of cutoff values for anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies in women of reproductive age in Southwest China

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by vascular thrombosis and obstetric morbidity, with accurate laboratory examination of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) being crucial for diagnosis. This study focused on anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies and aimed to establish the first population-based cutoff values for aβ2GPI IgA/IgM/IgG antibodies in non-pregnant women of reproductive age in Southwest China. The study cohort comprised 181 healthy women of reproductive age for study. Blood samples were collected on an early morning fast. Anti-β2GPI antibodies including IgA, IgM and IgG were measured in serum using the HOB® BioCLIA kit. According to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, the study used non-parametric percentile methods to calculate the 95th, 97.5th, and 99th percentiles cutoff values for aβ2GPI IgA/IgM/IgG antibodies, along with corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI), while excluding outliers. A total of 168 independent samples were collected for verification, including 85 samples from healthy subjects and 83 samples from APS patients, in order to evaluate the analytical performance of the obtained cutoff values. The 99th percentile cutoff values were 3.36 RU/mL for aβ2GPI IgA, 27.54 RU/mL for aβ2GPI IgM and 1.81 RU/mL for aβ2GPI IgG, which indicated that the levels of aβ2GPI IgM antibodies were generally higher compared to those of IgA and IgG antibodies. Our established reference range was confirmed to be successful in validating the detected values of aβ2GPI antibodies in all healthy controls. With the 99th percentile cutoff value, the sensitivity was 14.46% for aβ2GPI IgA, 22.89% for aβ2GPI IgG, and 9.64% for aβ2GPI IgM in APS patients. This study established population-based cutoff values that are applicable to the local population for the accurate laboratory examination of aβ2GPI antibodies in non-pregnant women of reproductive age. The study also recommends paying more attention to IgM positivity in women of reproductive age.

Issues in autoantibody tests used in the classification criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases: the laboratory autoimmunologist's perspective

Classification criteria of autoimmune rheumatic diseases are an important means to define homogenous groups of patients that can be compared across studies for clinical trials and research purposes. The measurement of autoantibodies is a relevant aspect in the definition of classification criteria, with a significant weight in the scores necessary to classify patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The impact of autoantibodies has gradually increased over the years, contributing to the evolution and improvement of the classification criteria. However, these criteria often do not take into consideration how autoantibodies are measured, i.e. differences in diagnostic accuracy of the methods. This is a critical point especially when obsolete analytical methods that are no longer used in many clinical laboratories are taken into consideration. In this review we have critically examined assays and methods for the determination of autoantibodies that are (or could be) included among the classification criteria of autoimmune rheumatic diseases in light of more recent evidence and technology evolution.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Antiphospholipid antibody testing

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are a family of autoantibodies targeting phospholipid-binding proteins and are associated with several clinical settings, and most notably define the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). These antibodies can be identified using a variety of laboratory tests, which include both solid-phase immunological assays and functional clotting assays that detect lupus anticoagulants (LA). aPLs are linked to a range of adverse medical conditions, such as thrombosis and complications affecting the placenta and fetus, potentially leading to morbidity and mortality. The specific aPL identified, along with the pattern of reactivity, correlates with the severity of these conditions. Therefore, laboratory testing for aPL is crucial for evaluating the risk of complications and for fulfilling certain classification criteria for APS, which are also applied as diagnostic markers in medical practice. This review provides an overview of the available laboratory tests currently for measuring aPL and discusses their clinical implications.

Establishment of ELISA-comparable moderate and high thresholds for anticardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein I chemiluminescent immunoassays according to the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria and evaluation of their diagnostic performance

OBJECTIVES

Recently published 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria emphasize the importance of quantifying single-, double-, and triple-antiphospholipid antibody positivity, distinguishing between IgG and IgM isotypes, and delineating moderate/high levels of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) antibodies. We aimed to establish clinically important moderate/high thresholds for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA), in particular QUANTA Flash, comparable to our in-house ELISAs used for over two decades, and to evaluate their diagnostic performance.

METHODS

QUANTA Flash CLIA and in-house ELISAs were used to measure aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM. Moderate thresholds for QUANTA Flash CLIA were determined using a non-parametric approach, calculating a 99th percentile on serum samples from 139 blood donors, and by mirroring the diagnostic performance of in-house ELISA on 159 patient samples.

RESULTS

Thresholds for QUANTA Flash CLIA achieving diagnostic performance equivalent to in-house ELISAs were 40 CU for moderate and 80 CU for high levels for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG and IgM. The assays showed good qualitative agreement, ranging from 76.10 to 91.19 %. When considering in-house ELISA results, 14 out of 80 (17.5 %) patients did not fulfill the new ACR/EULAR laboratory classification criteria, while 27 out of 80 (33.8 %) did not when considering QUANTA Flash CLIA results.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined moderate and high thresholds for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgG and IgM detected with QUANTA Flash CLIA, aligning with long-established in-house ELISA thresholds. These thresholds are crucial for seamlessly integrating of the new 2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria into future observational clinical studies and trials.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a rare systemic autoimmune disease characterized by recurrent pregnancy morbidity or thrombosis in combination with the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) in plasma/serum. Antiphospholipid antibodies are a heterogeneous, overlapping group of autoantibodies, of which anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI), anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies and antibodies that prolong plasma clotting time in tests in vitro known as lupus anticoagulant (LAC) are included in the laboratory criteria for the diagnosis of APS. The presence of LAC antibodies in plasma is indirectly determined by measuring the length of coagulation in two tests - activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and diluted Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT). The concentration of aβ2GPI and aCL (immunglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) isotypes) in serum is directly determined by solid-phase immunoassays, either by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), fluoroimmunoassay (FIA), immunochemiluminescence (CLIA) or multiplex flow immunoassay (MFIA). For patient safety, it is extremely important to control all three phases of laboratory testing, i.e. preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phase. Specialists in laboratory medicine must be aware of interferences in all three phases of laboratory testing, in order to minimize these interferences. The aim of this review was to show the current pathophysiological aspects of APS, the importance of determining aPLs-a in plasma/serum, with an emphasis on possible interferences that should be taken into account when interpreting laboratory findings.

Reporting and Establishment of Reference Intervals for Antiphospholipid Antibody Immunoassays: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program

CONTEXT.—

Misdiagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome can occur owing to the wide diversity of antiphospholipid (aPL) assays and a lack of international calibrators and harmonized reference intervals.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess laboratory practices regarding reporting and establishing reference intervals for immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) assays.

DESIGN.—

Supplemental questions related to reporting and establishing reference ranges for aPL assays were sent as part of the Antiphospholipid Antibody (ACL)-B 2019 College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing survey. The response rate and methods assessment details were determined, as well as qualitative and quantitative results for 3 test samples.

RESULTS.—

The number of participants reporting results for IgG aCL (n = 489), IgM aCL (n = 476), IgG anti-β2GPI (n = 354), and IgM anti-β2GPI (n = 331) varied by antibody type. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (up to 58.6%, 260 of 444) was the most used method; others included multiplex (from 18.9% to 23.9%), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (14.4%-17.6%), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (6.5%-9.0%). More respondents reported quantitative than qualitative results, and manufacturer cutoff ranges were used by 92.9% and 94.2% of respondents for aCL and anti-β2GPI, respectively. Despite variation in the use of semiquantitative ranges, qualitative negative/positive reporting of the test samples achieved almost 100% consensus. Qualitative consensus was met in contrast to the wide range of quantitative results obtained for each analyte across different kits.

CONCLUSIONS.—

ELISA remains the most used method for detecting aPL antibodies, with most laboratories reporting quantitative results based on manufacturers' suggested reference ranges. The categorization of quantitative results as equivocal, weak positive, or positive for responders using kits from the same manufacturer was variable.

Taipan snake venom time has high sensitivity for lupus anticoagulants in non-anticoagulated, triple positive antiphospholipid syndrome patients

INTRODUCTION

Dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are the mainstay assays in lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection yet they have limitations, particularly in relation to interferences and specificity. The recently validated Taipan snake venom time (TSVT) screening with ecarin time (ET) confirmatory assays overcome many of those limitations due to the innate specificity engendered from direct prothrombin activation, and insensitivity to the effects of vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The present study aimed to further evidence diagnostic utility of TSVT/ET by performing them in samples from 116 nonanticoagulated patients with established triple-positive antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

METHODS

Samples were identified in three expert centres who performed dRVVT, APTT and solid phase antiphospholipid antibody assays with reagents from a variety of manufacturers. All samples additionally received TSVT/ET analysis using standardised reagents.

RESULTS

Ninety seven of 116 (83.6%) were dRVVT- and APTT-positive, 85/97 (87.6%) of which were TSVT/ET-positive, 9/116 (7.8%) were dRVVT-positive only, 6 of which were TSVT/ET-positive, and 10/116 (8.6%) were APTT-positive only, 5 of which were TSVT/ET-positive. 96/116 TSVT/ET-positivity returned a high sensitivity for LA of 82.8%. Low coefficients of determination revealed weak relationships between LA potency and anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibody titres for all three LA assays.

CONCLUSIONS

TSVT/ET has high sensitivity for the clinically significant LA found in triple positive APS patients. TSVT/ET can establish multiple LA assay positivity in nonanticoagulated patients negative for one of dRVVT or APTT, and is the only assay pairing insensitive to VKAs, the recommended anticoagulation for APS.

Noncriteria antiphospholipid antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by thrombotic manifestations and/or obstetric complications in patients with persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). aPL are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies, but only lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory classification criteria. Seronegative APS patients are usually defined as patients with the clinical symptoms of APS but who test negative for aPL. The negativity to classic aPL criteria does not exclude the presence of other aPL. Several noncriteria aPL have been identified. Some noncriteria aPL are well studied, such as IgA aCL and aβ2GPI, the antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, and the antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI), both latter groups receiving more attention for their role in thrombotic events and pregnancy complications. Other noncriteria aPL that have been studied are antibodies against annexin V, prothrombin, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylinositol, vimentin-cardiolipin complex, anti-protein S/protein C. Measurement of some of these noncriteria aPL (aPS/PT, aDI) is useful in the laboratory work-out of APS in specific situations. We have to differentiate between patients who are positive for noncriteria aPL only, and patients who have both criteria and noncriteria aPL to enable us to study their role in the diagnosis or risk stratification of APS. The research on noncriteria aPL is continually developing as the clinical relevance of these antibodies is not yet fully clarified.

Pattern of disease expression in SLE patients with antiphospholipid antibodies: data from Indian Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Inception cohort (INSPIRE)

Antiphospholipid antibodies (APLA) are present in one-third of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, and they are associated with both criteria and non-criteria manifestations. We studied the prevalence, clinical associations, and impact on mortality of APLA in SLE patients from India. Among the Indian SLE inception cohort (INSPIRE), patients who had data on all five routinely performed APLAs [lupus anticoagulant (LA), IgG and IgM anticardiolipin antibody (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I(β2GPI)] at enrolment were selected. Patients were divided into four categories based on the presence/absence of APLA associated manifestations and presence/absence of the APLA viz SLE-APS, SLE-APLA, SLE: events but no APLA, and SLE: no events, no APLA (reference group). 1035 SLE patients at least 1 APLA antibody was detected in 372 (35.9%). LA was present in 206 (19.9%), aCL in 126 (12.2%) and β2-GPI in 178 (17.2%). There were 88 thrombotic events in 83 patients (8.0%); 73 (82.9%) being arterial; APLA positivity was present in 37 (44.6%) [AOR 1.70 (1.054, 2.76)]. SLE-APS patients were younger and had higher mortality [AOR 4.11 (1.51, 11.3)], neuropsychiatric and hematologic disease. SLE-APLA also had a higher mortality rate [AOR 2.94 (1.06, 8.22)] than the reference group. The mortality was highest in the subset of patients with thrombotic events in the presence of APLA [AOR 7.67 (1.25, 46.9)]. The mere presence of APLA also conferred higher mortality even in the absence of thrombotic events [AOR 3.51 (1.43, 8.63)]. Hematologic manifestations (36.1%) were the most common non-criteria-manifestation. One-third of SLE patients have APLA and its presence is associated with non-criteria hematologic manifestations, arterial thrombosis and higher mortality rate.

Risk factors for damage accrual in primary antiphospholipid syndrome: A retrospective single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite anticoagulant therapy, a antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) has a higher rate of recurrent events, which can lead to damage accrual and a negative impact on life quality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk factors and APS subsets associated with damage accrual.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study. We reviewed the medical records of 282 APS patients, with a median age of 36 (IQR 30-46) years and a median of 195 (IQR 137-272) months. The primary endpoint was damage accrual during follow-up, defined as organ/tissue impairment present for at least six months or causing permanent loss. The secondary endpoints were early organ damage within six months of disease onset and death.

RESULTS

Eighty (28.4%) patients presented damage accrual; 52.5% developed damage within six months of APS onset, and 41.3% had more than one organ involved. Neuropsychiatric involvement, affecting 38.8% of the patients, was the most frequent, followed by peripheral vasculopathy and renal involvement, 35% either. Death happened in 7 (2.5 %) patients; damage accrual was associated with a 6-fold risk of death [OR 6.7 (95% CI 1.3-35.1), p = 0.03]. Microangiopathy and non-criteria manifestations were independent risk factors for damage accrual with 5-fold and 4-fold higher risk, respectively [(OR 4.9 (95% CI 2.1-11.7), p < 0.0001 and (OR 3.8 (95% CI 1.5-10.1), p = 0.007]. The cumulative incidence of damage accrual increased by 5.7-fold and 3.6-fold in patients with microangiopathy and non-criteria manifestations.

CONCLUSIONS

APS patients had a higher frequency of damage accrual. Microangiopathy and non-criteria manifestations were independent risk factors for damage accrual.

Deciphering the clinical significance of longitudinal antiphospholipid antibody titers

In antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the risk of clinical manifestations increases with higher titers of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Despite the adoption of aPL titers in the classification approach to aPL-positive subjects, the value of longitudinal monitoring of those titers in the follow-up is still debated, being well studied only in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The literature suggests that the rate of aPL positivity decreases during follow-up in primary APS, estimating that seroconversion occurs in between 8.9 and 59% of patients over time. Negativisation of aPL occurs more frequently in asymptomatic aPL carriers than in patients with full-blown APS as well as in subjects with single aPL positivity or low aPL antibody titers. In patients with SLE, aPL typically behave fluctuating from positive to negative and back again in the course of follow-up. The few studies assessing the longitudinal course of aPL positivity with no associated systemic connective tissue disease reported a progressive decrement of aPL titers over time, in particular of antibodies against β2 glycoprotein I (antiβ2GPI) and cardiolipin (aCL) of IgG isotype. After a thrombotic event, aPL titers tend to decrease, as emerged from cohorts of both primary and secondary APS. Hydroxychloroquine has been identified as the most effective pharmacological agent to reduce aPL titers, with multiple studies demonstrating a parallel reduction in thrombosis rate. This review addresses available evidence on the significance of aPL titer fluctuation from clinical, therapeutic and pathogenic perspectives.

A thrombin-driven neural net diagnoses the antiphospholipid syndrome without the need for interruption of anticoagulation

ABSTRACT

Thrombosis is an important manifestation of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The thrombin generation (TG) test is a global hemostasis assay, and increased TG is associated with thrombosis. APS is currently diagnosed based on clinical and laboratory criteria, the latter defined as anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). APS testing is often performed after a thrombotic episode and subsequent administration of anticoagulation, which might hamper the interpretation of clotting assays used for LA testing. We set out to develop an artificial neural network (NN) that can diagnose APS in patients who underwent vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, based on TG test results. Five NNs were trained to diagnose APS in 48 VKA-treated patients with APS and 64 VKA-treated controls, using TG and thrombin dynamics parameters as inputs. The 2 best-performing NNs were selected (accuracy, 96%; sensitivity, 96%-98%; and specificity, 95%-97%) and further validated in an independent cohort of VKA-anticoagulated patients with APS (n = 33) and controls (n = 62). Independent clinical validation favored 1 of the 2 selected NNs, with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 94% for the diagnosis of APS. In conclusion, the combined use of TG and NN methodology allowed for us to develop an NN that diagnoses APS with an accuracy of 92% in individuals with VKA anticoagulation (n = 95). After further clinical validation, the NN could serve as a screening and diagnostic tool for patients with thrombosis, especially because there is no need to interrupt anticoagulant therapy.

Thrombin generation assay and lupus anticoagulant synergically distinguish populations of patients with antiphospholipid antibodies

AIM

To apply thrombin generation assay (TGA) in a large cohort of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL)-positive patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

108 patients were tested with TGA and lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing and divided according to their aPL profile. Briefly, 21 patients were positive for anti-phosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) IgG/IgM (group1), 29 for anti-ß2-glycoprotein-I (aβ2GPI) and anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM (group2), 31 for aPS/PT, aβ2GPI and aCL IgG/IgM (group3), 27 for aPS/PT and/or aβ2GPI+aCL IgM at low-titres (group4). 31 healthy donors (HDs) and 24 controls treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were included.

RESULTS

The most deranged TGA and LA profiles were observed in tetra-positive patients (group3) that differed significantly to the other groups, thus those with isolated, double or triple aPL-positivity. Moreover, when comparing the TGA profile of all antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients, aPL-carriers, HDs and VKA controls, we observed that the aPL+ patients (especially APS) showed a distinctive profile that allowed to distinguish them from the other groups with significantly higher tLag and tPeak, and lower Peak and area under the curve.When focusing on APS clinical manifestations, patients with a high-risk profile (group3) showed significant differences from those presenting low-titres aPL (group 4) regarding the number of venous events (p=0.04), recurrence of any thrombotic event (p=0.01), of arterial events (5 vs 0, p=0.02), the occurrence of TIA (p=0.04), DVT (p=0.02) and, when analysing extracriteria manifestations, of peripheral artery disease (p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TGA seems a valuable approach to stratify aPL+ patients according to their risk profile. The differences among different populations of autoantibodies specificities could be considered a translational validation of the increased thrombotic risk of patients with triple or tetra aPL-positivity.

Triple-positive antiphospholipid syndrome does not guarantee positivity in each lupus anticoagulant assay

BACKGROUND

Triple positivity for all 3 criteria antiphospholipid antibodies confers high risk of symptom development in carriers, and recurrence in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Most triple-positivity studies report lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing as positive without distinguishing between positivity with dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and single-assay positivity or only perform dRVVT. Single LA assay repertoires remain in use in some centers, which risks missing some triple positives. Positivity with both assays may identify higher risk.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate the frequency of single LA assay positivity in triple-positive patients.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-two triple-positive profiles from nonanticoagulated patients (237 APS, 45 systemic lupus erythematosus without APS symptoms, and 60 nonclinical criteria) were identified from laboratory databases and assessed for LA positivity by dRVVT and/or APTT.

RESULTS

Seventy-three of 237 (30.8%) APS samples were LA-positive with 1 assay, 40/237 (16.9%) by dRVVT only, and 33/237 (13.9%) with APTT only. Nineteen of 45 (42.2%) were LA-positive with 1 assay in the systemic lupus erythematosus cohort; 12/45 (26.7%) with dRVVT only and 7/45 (15.5%) with APTT only. Thirty-three of 60 (55.0%) were LA-positive with 1 assay in the nonclinical criteria cohort; 24/60 (40.0%) with dRVVT only and 9/60 (15.0%) with APTT only. The most common solid-phase assay profile was elevated immunoglobulin G aCL and aβ2GPI.

CONCLUSION

Up to 55.0% of triple-positive samples were positive in 1 LA assay, representing significant potential for misdiagnosis and inappropriate management via single LA assay repertoires.

Antiphospholipid Antibodies and Vascular Thrombosis in Patients with Severe Forms of COVID-19

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLA) are a laboratory criterion for the classification of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and are known to cause clinical symptoms such as vascular thrombosis or obstetric complications. It is suggested that aPLA may be associated with thromboembolism in severe COVID-19 cases. Therefore, we aimed to combine clinical data with laboratory findings of aPLA at four time points (admission, worsening, discharge, and 3-month follow-up) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. In 111 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, current and past history of thrombosis and pregnancy complications were recorded. Nine types of aPLA were determined at four time points: anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2-glycoprotein I (anti- β2GPI), and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) of the IgM, IgG, or IgA isotypes. During hospitalization, seven patients died, three of them due to pulmonary artery thromboembolism (none were aPLA positive). Only one of the five who developed pulmonary artery thrombosis was aPLA positive. Out of 9/101 patients with a history of thrombosis, five had arterial thrombosis and none were aPLA positive at admission and follow-up; four had venous thrombosis, and one was aPLA positive at all time points (newly diagnosed APS). Of these 9/101 patients, 55.6% were transiently aPLA positive at discharge only, compared to 26.1% without a history of thrombosis (p = 0.041). Patients with severe forms of COVID-19 and positive aPLA should receive the same dose and anticoagulant medication regimen as those with negative aPLA because those antibodies are mostly transiently positive and not linked to thrombosis and fatal outcomes.

Close link between antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and activated protein C resistance in tetra antiphospholipid antibody-positive subjects

BACKGROUND

Most of the carriers/patients triple-positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (lupus anticoagulant [LAC], immunoglobulin G [IgG]/immunoglobulin M [IgM] anticardiolipin, and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies) are tetra-positive, being positive for antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies. The relationship between aPS/PT titer, LAC potency, and resistance to activated protein C (aPC-R) has not been investigated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to clarify the mutual interdependence of these parameters in tetra-positive subjects.

METHODS

Twenty-three carriers and 30 patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, none of whom were being treated with anticoagulants, and 30 age- and sex-matched controls were studied. Detection of aPS/PT, LAC, and aPC-R in each individual was performed with established methods in our laboratory. Carriers and patients were positive for IgG or IgM aPS/PT or for both isotypes without significant difference. Since both IgG and IgM aPS/PT have anticoagulant activity, we used the sum of their titers (total aPS/PT) for the correlation studies.

RESULTS

Total aPS/PT in all individuals studied exceeded that in controls. There was no difference in total aPS/PT titers (P = .72), LAC potency (P = .56), and aPC-R (P = .82) between antiphospholipid antibody-carriers and patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. There was a significant correlation between total aPS/PT and LAC potency (r = 0.78; P < .0001) and between total aPS/PT titers and aPC-R (r = 0.80; P < .0001). LAC potency also was correlated significantly with aPC-R (r = 0.72; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there is interdependence between aPS/PT, LAC potency, and aPC-R.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Kidney Involvement

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the development of autoantibodies and the impairment of the coagulation system. Knowledge about this syndrome is increasing over time, but kidney involvement, especially APS nephropathy, still represents a challenge for physicians.

SUMMARY

A "two hit" model has been hypothesized to explain APS pathophysiology, and the role played by some factors, such as the complement system, is becoming more and more clear. From a clinical point of view, along with thrombosis in any site and/or obstetric morbidities, that are the hallmarks of APS, a constellation of several other clinical symptoms is related to APS. These symptoms alone are not sufficient to fulfill Sydney criteria for APS and this could potentially lead to omitting some diagnoses. The mainstay of management of APS is antithrombotic therapy, but there are expectations for new drugs that regulate the immune system. APS could affect the kidneys in many ways and among them, APS nephropathy is an intriguing entity that has been overlooked in recent years. Novel studies on APS nephropathy are lacking.

KEY MESSAGES

In this review, we discuss what we currently know about APS and its relationship with the kidney, with an eye toward the future perspectives. Multicenter studies on APS nephropathy are necessary in order to develop targeted therapies.

Laboratory Evaluation of Antithrombin, Protein C, and Protein S

Thrombophilia is a complex disease process, clinically manifesting in various forms of venous thromboembolism. Although both genetic and acquired (or environmental) risks factors have been reported, the presence of a genetic defect (antithrombin [AT], protein C [PC], protein S [PS]) is considered three of the major contributing factors of thrombophilia. The presence of each of these risk factors can be established by clinical laboratory analysis; however, the clinical provider and laboratory personnel must understand the testing limitations and shortcomings associated with the assays for these factors to be able to ensure an accurate diagnosis. This article will describe the major pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical issues associated with the various types of assays and discuss evidence-based algorithms for analyzing AT, PC, and PS in plasma.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

The added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) in the diagnostic workup of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unclear. Currently, diagnosis of thrombotic APS (TAPS) and obstetric APS (OAPS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM, or anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in OAPS.

METHODS

aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 653 patients (OAPS, TAPS, and controls). In-house aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, titers and prevalence were compared between OAPS, TAPS, and controls and type of pregnancy morbidity. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated.

RESULTS

In OAPS, aPS/PT IgG and IgM showed an OR of 4.32 (95% CI, 2.54-7.36) and 3.37 (95% CI, 1.93-5.89), respectively, but the association was not independent of LAC. Prevalence and titers of aPS/PT IgG and IgM were lower in OAPS than in patients with TAPS. aPS/PT were more prevalent and showed higher titers in patients with late pregnancy loss than in patients with early pregnancy loss with a positivity of 86.4% and 39.3%, respectively. Higher aPS/PT titers did not increase the likelihood of having OAPS.

CONCLUSION

The added value of aPS/PT testing in the current diagnostic workup of OAPS seems limited compared with LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI. aPS/PT might be useful in specific subsets of patients with OAPS. However, future multicentric studies are needed to elucidate the risk of less frequent and most severe obstetrical manifestations.

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.

Demographic, Clinical, and Serological Characteristics of Antiphospholipid Syndrome Patients From the Anticoagulation Clinic of Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia

INTRODUCTION

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia, characterized by vascular thrombosis or obstetric compromise, associated with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Large international studies have analyzed the clinical/serological behavior of the disease and in Colombia, there are few cohorts that have been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective is to characterize the patients with APS followed in the anticoagulation clinic of a tertiary care hospital and to determine the clinical manifestations and serological findings at diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective descriptive study was carried out to evaluate patients with a presumptive and/or confirmed diagnosis of APS, according to modified Sapporo criteria, which fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria established by the authors. The information was collected from the review of medical records.

RESULTS

We included 103 patients, with the female sex being the most prevalent (86.6%). 54.3% of the patients (n = 56) had a diagnosis of primary APS. Venous thrombotic events occurred in 87.3% (n = 90) of the patients, 34.9% (n = 36) had arterial thrombosis (n = 36), and 3.9% (n = 4) had catastrophic APS (n = 4). 15 cases of Obstetric APS were documented. Lupus coagulation inhibitor (LA) positivity was the most prevalent marker in 84% (n = 68) of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical behavior in this cohort of patients is like that found in large international and national studies. Most patients have a probable diagnosis of APS, so they could overestimate the real prevalence and condition of long-term anticoagulant treatment.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in pulmonary embolism treated with direct oral anticoagulants: Prevalence data from unselected consecutive patients

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-choice treatment option for the prevention of the recurrence of venous thrombosis in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE); however, their effect in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is challenged. Therefore, the prevalence of antiphospholipid autoantibodies in patients with PE is noteworthy.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of unselected patients presenting with PE who meet the criteria for APS based on elevated levels of anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies.

Methods

Consecutive patients with PE, in whom DOACs were primarily initiated, were tested for aCL and aβ2GPI. If the levels were elevated, the tests were repeated after 12 weeks for APS diagnosis. Laboratory results and patient characteristics were retrospectively collected from a laboratory information system and electronic patient journal entries over a 2-year period.

Results

The prevalence of APS based on consistently elevated levels of aCL or aβ2GPI was 3.7% (10 of 267 patients). Three patients were double positive. In 11 out of 21 patients (52%) with initially elevated values, the levels of the antibodies normalized after 12 weeks. The patient characteristics were largely similar in those with APS and those without APS; however, patients with APS tended to be older and more likely to receive antithrombotic treatment at the time of PE.

Conclusion

We found a relatively low prevalence of APS based on aCL or aβ2GPI. The high rate of normalized levels of the antibodies after 12 weeks reaffirms the need for repeated tests for APS diagnosis. Older patients more frequently met the criteria for APS. Determining the effectiveness of DOACs in non-triple-positive patients with APS following venous thromboembolism is important to further determine the feasibility of unselected tests in patients with PE.

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Anti-phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Antibodies (aPS/PT)

Since the discovery that antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) bind to a cofactor at the phospholipid membrane, the proteins beta-2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI) and prothrombin seemed to be the antigens of importance in the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Anti-β2GPI antibodies (aβ2GPI) were soon included in the classification criteria, while anti-prothrombin antibodies (aPT) are still regarded as "non-criteria" aPL. Evidence is accumulating that antibodies against prothrombin are clinically relevant and closely associated with APS and the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA). Among the non-criteria aPL, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are one of the most frequently studied aPL. More and more studies illustrate the evidence of the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies. aPS/PT IgG and IgM are associated with arterial and venous thrombosis, show an overlap with LA presence, and are frequently present in triple-positive patients, regarded as patients at highest risk for APS-related clinical symptoms. Moreover, the association of aPS/PT with thrombosis increases with higher titers, confirming that presence of aPS/PT consolidates the risk. So far, the added value of aPS/PT on top of the criteria aPL to diagnose APS is not clear with opposing findings in literature. Described in this chapter is the procedure for detecting these antibodies with a commercial ELISA, which can be used to determine the presence of IgG and IgM aPS/PT in human samples. Additionally, general guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aPS/PT assay will be provided.

Laboratory Testing for Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: Antibodies Toward the Domain I of Beta2-Glycoprotein I (aDI)

Anti-β2GPI antibodies (aβ2GPI) are one of the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), along with lupus anticoagulant (LA) and anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL). A subset of the aβ2GPI are the antibodies directed toward the domain I of the β2GPI (aDI). The aDI are regarded as non-criteria aPL and are among the most studied non-criteria aPL. Antibodies directed against a specific epitope in the domain I (G40-R43) of β2GPI were shown to be strongly correlated with thrombotic and obstetric events in APS. Many studies illustrated the pathogenic capacity of these antibodies, although with various results, depending on the assay used. The first studies were performed with an in-house ELISA with high specificity for aDI toward the G40-R43 epitope. More recently, a commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay for aDI IgG became obtainable for diagnostic laboratories. Although the added value of aDI on top of the criteria aPL is not clear, with opposing findings in literature, the assay might help in the diagnosis of APS, identifying the patients at risk since aDI are frequently present with high titers in triple-positive patients (positive for LA, aβ2GPI, and aCL). aDI can be used as a confirmatory test and is useful for proving the specificity of the aβ2GPI antibodies. In this chapter, the procedure for detecting these antibodies is outlined, using an automated chemiluminescence assay which can be used to determine the presence of IgG aDI in human samples. General guidelines that will facilitate optimal performance of the aDI assay are also provided.

Interference in point-of-care international normalized ratio monitoring in patients with lupus anticoagulant is correlated with anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibody titers

Background

Patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) receive anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent recurrent thrombosis. VKA treatment requires strict monitoring with an international normalized ratio (INR). It is known that lupus anticoagulants (LAs) can lead to elevated INR results with point-of-care-testing (POCT) devices, which could result in inadequate adaptation of anticoagulant therapy.

Objective

To determine discrepancies between POCT-INR and laboratory-INR in patients who are LA-positive on VKA therapy.

Methods

Paired INR testing was performed with 1 POCT device (CoaguChek XS) and 2 laboratory assays (Owren and Quick method) in 33 patients with LA-positive APS on VKA in a single-center cross-sectional study. Patients were tested for anti-β2-glycoprotein I, anticardiolipin, and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM antibodies. Agreement between assays was evaluated with Spearman's correlation, Lin's correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. Agreement limits were considered satisfactory if differences were ≤20% as determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Results

We found poor agreement between POCT-INR and laboratory-INR based on Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρ_c) of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.26-0.55) between POCT-INR and Owren-INR, a ρ_c of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47-0.76) between POCT-INR and Quick-INR, and a ρ_c of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.85) between Quick-INR and Owren-INR. High anti-β2-glycoprotein I IgG antibody titers correlated with INR disagreement between POCT-INR and laboratory-INR.

Conclusion

There is a disagreement between INR values measured with the CoaguChek XS and laboratory-INR in a proportion of patients with LA. Consequently, laboratory-INR monitoring should be preferred over POCT-INR monitoring in patients with LA-positive APS, especially in patients with high anti-β2-glycoprotein IgG antibody titers.

Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing for Anti-cardiolipin and Anti-β2 Glycoprotein I Antibodies Using Chemiluminescence-Based Panels

Antiphospholipid (antibody) syndrome (APS) is a prothrombotic condition with increased risk for thrombosis and pregnancy-related morbidity. In addition to clinical criteria related to these risks, APS is characterized by the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), as detected in the laboratory using a potentially wide variety of assays. The three APS criteria-related assays are lupus anticoagulant (LA), as detected using clot-based assays, and the solid-phase assays of anti-cardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI), with immunoglobulin subclasses of IgG and/or IgM. These tests may also be used for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In particular, APS diagnosis/exclusion remains challenging for clinicians and laboratories because of the heterogeneity of clinical presentations in those being evaluated and the technical application and variety of the associated tests used in laboratories. Although LA testing is affected by a wide variety of anticoagulants, which are often given to APS patients to prevent any associated clinical morbidity, detection of solid-phase aPL is not influenced by these anticoagulants, and this thus represents a potential advantage to their application. On the other hand, various technical issues challenge accurate laboratory detection or exclusion of aPL. This report describes protocols for the assessment of solid-phase aPL, specifically aCL and aβ2GPI of IgG and IgM class by means of a chemiluminescence-based assay panel. These protocols reflect tests able to be performed on the AcuStar instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory). Certain regional approvals may also allow this testing to be performed on a BIO-FLASH instrument (Werfen/Instrumentation Laboratory).

Laboratory Evaluation of Thrombophilia

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs typically in the veins of the lower extremities and/or as pulmonary embolism. There is a myriad of causes of VTE ranging from provoked causes (e.g., surgery, cancer) to unprovoked causes (e.g., inherited abnormalities) or multiple factors that combine to initiate the cause. Thrombophilia is a complex, multi-factorial disease that may result in VTE. The mechanism(s) and causes of thrombophilia are complex and not completely understood. In healthcare today, only some answers about the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prevention of thrombophilia have been elucidated. The laboratory analysis for thrombophilia is not consistently applied, and has changed over time, but remains varied by providers and laboratories as well. Both groups must establish harmonized guidelines for patient selection and appropriate conditions for analysis of inherited and acquired risk factors. This chapter discusses the pathophysiology of thrombophilia, and evidence-based medicine guidelines discuss the optimum laboratory testing algorithms and protocols for selection and analyzing VTE patients to ensure a cost-effective use of limited resources.

Persistence of antiphospholipid antibodies over time and its association with recurrence of clinical manifestations: A longitudinal study from a single centre

PURPOSE

To analyze the antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) persistence over time in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and its association with clinical recurrence and to identify predictors of aPL persistence over time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

200 patients with a diagnosis of APS and at least three follow-up aPL determinations were included. Persistent aPL profile was defined as the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC) and/or IgG/IgM anticardiolipin (aCL) and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2 glycoprotein-I (aβ2GPI) (> 99th percentile) antibodies in at least 66% of follow-up measurements. Multilevel mixed-effect generalized linear models with logit link were used.

RESULTS

112 (56%) patients maintained persistent aPL profiles over time, while 88 (44%) were transient. Median follow-up time was 172.5 months. Follow-up time did not affect the odds of aPL persistence in multivariate analysis (p = 1.00). Baseline triple aPL positivity [OR 78 (95%CI 16.9-359.7, p < 0.001)] and double aPL positivity [OR = 7.6 (95%CI 3.7-15.7, p < 0.001)] correlated with persistent aPLs over time, while isolated LAC [OR = 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.49, p = 0.002)] or isolated IgG/IgM aCL [OR = 0.20 (95% CI 0.11-0.59, p = 0.004)] positivity, were predictors of transient aPL profile. Patients with persistent aPLs had higher rate of clinical recurrence in comparison to patients with transient aPLs [OR = 2.48 (95%CI 1.34-4.58, p = 0.003)].

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of patients with baseline medium-high titer aPL positivity had persistent positive aPLs over time. Patients with persistent aPLs were more prone to present recurrence of clinical manifestations. Multiple aPL positivity increased the odds of a persistent aPL profile over time, while isolated LAC and aCL positivity decreased it.

Added value of antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies in the workup of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, or anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies. Other antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are promising in assessment of thrombotic APS (TAPS).

AIM

To evaluate the added value of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in TAPS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 757 patients (TAPS and controls). aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, and aPS/PT titers and positivity were compared between TAPS and controls, type of thrombosis, and antibody profiles. Likelihood ratios (LR), odds ratios (OR), and aPL score were determined.

RESULTS

aPS/PT IgG and IgM were associated with TAPS and triple positivity. In-house calculated cut-offs were higher for IgM (43 units), compared to manufacturer's cut-off (30 units). Thresholds of 90 (IgG) and 200 (IgM) units were determined as high-titer cut-off. Higher aPS/PT titers were observed in triple positive patients and showed higher LR and OR for TAPS. aPS/PT was independently associated with TAPS when adjusted for aCL/aβ2GPI, but not when adjusted for LAC. In isolated LAC positive patients, aPS/PT was positive in 27.1% TAPS patients and in 77.3% patients with autoimmune disease. Diagnostic value of aPL score did not differ with and without including aPS/PT.

CONCLUSION

aPS/PT positivity, especially with high antibody titer, is associated with TAPS diagnosis. Analysis on top of current laboratory criteria is not essential in TAPS diagnosis, but aPS/PT could be useful in patients with thrombosis and a double positive aPL profile (aCL+/aβ2GPI+).

Predictive value of the Adjusted Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score on clinical recurrence in APS patients: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of the average adjusted global APS score (aGAPSS) over time on recurrence of clinical manifestations in APS patients through a retrospective longitudinal study.

METHODS

The study included 200 patients with APS. The aGAPSS was calculated for each patient at baseline and on a yearly basis for either up to 6 years (minimum 3 years) or just before the clinical event in patients who experienced clinical recurrence. The mean score per patient was computed. In patients under vitamin K antagonists (VKA) the percentage of time spent within the therapeutic range (TTR) was calculated. Cox-regression analysis was performed to determine the cut-off value of the aGAPSS with the strongest association with clinical recurrence.

RESULTS

Higher average aGAPSS values were found in patients who experienced clinical recurrence in comparison to patients who did not [8.81 (95% C.I. 7.53-10.08) vs 6.38 (95% C.I. 5.64-7.12), p = 0.001], patients with thrombotic recurrence compared to patients with obstetric recurrence [9.48 (95% C.I. 8.14-10.82) vs 4.25 (95% C.I. 0.85-7.65), p = 0.006], and patients with arterial thrombosis compared to patients with venous thrombosis [10.66 (S.D. 5.48) vs 6.63 (S.D. 4.42), p = 0.01]. aGAPSS values > 13 points were associated with the highest risk of recurrence in multivariate analysis [HR = 3.25 (95% C.I. 1.93-5.45, p < 0.0001]. TTR was not statistically different between patients who had thrombosis recurrence and patients who had not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the role of periodic (annual) monitoring of the aGAPSS score in predicting clinical recurrence in patients with APS.

Platelet- and endothelial-derived microparticles in the context of different antiphospholipid antibody profiles

Objectives

Studies on microparticles (MPs) in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are sparse and inconclusive. The relation between MPs and different aPL antibody profiles has never been tested. We evaluated the presence of platelet and endothelial microparticles in patients positive for IgG anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies according to triple, double and single positive aPL profiles.

Methods

Megamix (Biocytex) was used to set up the MPs gating according to the datasheet. Markers of Platelet Microparticles (PMPs) were CD41a-PE and annexin-V-FITC that was used to determine phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure. CD144-FITC was used as a marker of Endothelial Microparticles (EMPs).

Results

The number of total MPs and EMPs was significantly higher in triple positive groups with respect to single positive group and showed a significant correlation with IgG aβ2GPI titers. The number PMPs was the lowest in triple positive group and inversely correlated with IgG aβ2GPI titers.

Conclusions

Elevated levels of total MPs and EMPs suggest a state of vascular activation in IgG aβ2GPI positive individuals according to the number of positive tests. PMPs may be fast cleared from circulation in high risk triple positive patients.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome-Related Pulmonary Embolism: Clinical Characteristics and Early Recognition

Background

Pulmonary thromboembolism is a common disease frequently encountered in the emergency room and has a high mortality rate. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a high-risk factor for recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). It is critical to effectively administer anticoagulants to avoid the recurrence of thrombotic events. This study aims to identify the clinical characteristics of APS patients with PE (APS-PE) and to develop a risk score for determining the presence of APS in PE patients in the emergency situations.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 76 PE patients in this study, with 46 patients in the APS-PE group and 30 patients in the non-APS-PE group. We compared differences in demographics, laboratory parameters, and early mortality risk between the two groups. Risk factors for APS-PE were screened using logistic regression analysis. We also developed an early risk score using multivariate analysis weighted points proportional to the β- regression coefficient values and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for APS in PE patients.

Results

In the APS-PE group, we observed a higher proportion of males (43.6 vs. 20%), a higher proportion of low-risk patients (58.7 vs. 10%), lower levels of white blood cells and platelets (PLT), longer activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and a slight increase in D-dimer levels. Patients who were triple positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) were younger. The APTT gradually increased as the number of positive aPLs increased. The risk factors for APS included male (OR = 5.565, 95% CI 1.176–26.341), decreased PLT (OR = 0.029, 95% CI 0.003–0.330), slightly increased D-dimer (OR = 0.089, 95% CI 0.019–0.426), and prolonged APTT (OR = 4.870, 95% CI 1.189–19.951). The risk score was named MPDA and included male, PLT, D-dimer and APTT, which can predict APS in PE patients with the AUC at 0.888 (95% CI 0.811–0.965).

Conclusion

The risk factors for APS in PE patients are male, low PLT, prolonged APTT and slightly increased D-dimer. The MPDA is a quantitative scoring system which is highly suggestive of APS in PE patients.

Solid Phase Assays for Antiphospholipid Antibodies

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are the laboratory criteria if persistently present over time. As aCL and aβ2GPI are two out of the three laboratory criteria, the detection of aPL by solid phase assays is an essential step in the diagnosis of APS. Advancement has been made to resolve some of the methodological challenges of aCL and aβ2GPI assays by providing guidelines how to measure aPL, as well as to gain a better understanding of their diagnostic role. However, solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show substantive inter-assay differences, resulting in disagreement concerning positive/negative results, but also differences in titer of antibodies. This hampers the semiquantitative classification into low-medium-high positivity. The non-criteria aPL, such as antibodies against the domain one of β2GPI and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) have roles in confirming the risk in APS, and can be useful, especially in patients with incomplete antibody profiles.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.

Profile of antiphospholipid antibodies in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women with a history of thrombosis

INTRODUCTION

Increased antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) have been described in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. However, the association between aPL and the increased risk of thrombosis in HIV requires further clarification.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 215 consecutive women with a history of thrombosis and/or obstetric complications (158 HIV-uninfected and 57 HIV-infected) between July 2017 and March 2021. Participants (n = 215) without clinical criteria manifestations for antiphospholipid syndrome were included as matched controls. Testing for lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta2-glycoprotein1 (aβ2GP1) IgM and IgG was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (10.1%) HIV-uninfected and 15 (13.2%) HIV-infected participants were positive at baseline for one of the five criteria aPL, with no statistically significant difference. The profile of the HIV-infected participants with thrombosis (n = 11) included LAC in 15.8%, aCL IgG in 3.5% and aβ2GP1 IgG in 1.8%. In contrast, the HIV-infected controls (n = 4), included aCL IgM in 1.8% and aβ2GP1 IgM in 5.3%. Only LAC was significantly associated with thrombosis (p < 0.003). On repeat testing, in a HIV-infected sub-population, 2/7 with thrombosis were positive, while 3/3 controls tested negative.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to earlier reports, the prevalence and expression of aPL in HIV-infected women with a history of thrombosis in the present study, in the era of antiretroviral therapy, were similar to HIV-uninfected women. Baseline LAC positivity was associated with a significantly increased risk for thrombosis in HIV. Future studies are recommended to explore additional coagulation abnormalities in HIV.

Semiquantitative interpretation of anticardiolipin and antiβ2glycoprotein I antibodies measured with various analytical platforms: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms.

AIM

To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated.

RESULTS

Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM.

CONCLUSION

Use of 40/80 units as medium/high thresholds is acceptable for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG ELISA, but not for CLIA and MFI. Alternative semiquantitative thresholds for non-ELISA platforms can be determined by a clinical approach or by using monoclonal antibodies. Semiquantitative reporting of aPL IgM has less impact on increasing probability for APS.

International multicenter, multiplatform study to validate Taipan snake venom time as a lupus anticoagulant screening test with ecarin time as the confirmatory test: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays are compromised in anticoagulated patients, and existing strategies to overcome the interferences have limitations. The prothrombin-activating Taipan snake venom time (TSVT) screening test and ecarin time (ET) confirmatory test are innately insensitive to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (DFXaI).

OBJECTIVES

Validate standardized TSVT/ET reagents for LA detection, in a multicenter, multiplatform study.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Six centers from four countries analyzed samples with TSVT/ET from 81 nonanticoagulated patients with LA, patients with established antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and proven persistent LA who were either not anticoagulated (n = 120) or were anticoagulated with VKAs (n = 180) or DFXaIs (n = 71). Additionally, 339 nonanticoagulated LA-negative patients, and 575 anticoagulated non-APS patients (172 VKA, 403 DFXaI) were tested. Anticoagulant spiking experiments were performed and 112 samples containing potential interferences (i.e., direct thrombin inhibitors) were tested. Results were evaluated against locally derived cutoffs. Imprecision was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cutoffs were remarkably similar despite use of different analyzers and donor populations. Cutoffs for TSVT ratio, ET ratio, percent correction, and normalized TSVT ratio/ET ratio ranged between 1.08 and 1.10, 1.09 and 1.12, 9.3% and 14.8%, and 1.10 and 1.15, respectively. Coefficients of variation for TSVT and ET ratios were ≤5.0%. TSVT/ET exhibited sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 78.2%/95.0%/86.3%/91.5%, respectively, with established APS as the LA-positive population, and 86.9%/95.0%/76.8%/97.4%, respectively, with triple-positive APS. Interference was seen with direct thrombin inhibitors, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparins, but not VKAs or DFXaIs.

CONCLUSIONS

TSVT/ET are validated for LA detection in nonanticoagulated patients and those on VKAs or DFXaIs.

Indication and outcome of lupus anticoagulant and antiphospholipid antibodies testing in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Lupus anticoagulans (LACs) and aPLs, both further summarized as aPL, are frequently assessed in routine daily clinical practice in diagnostic workups for suspected autoimmune diseases or to test for underlying risk factors in patients with thrombosis or obstetric complications. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of aPL positivity in patients with an indication for aPL testing in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-centre study, indication for aPL testing, aPL test results and clinical data were collected for patients tested between June 2015 and April 2018.

RESULTS

During the study period, 16 847 single aPL tests were performed in 2139 patients. In 212 patients one or more positive aPL test was found, confirmed in 43.9% with a second positive test. Indications for aPL testing were diagnostic workup/follow-up of autoimmune diseases (33.6%), thrombosis (21.4%) and obstetric complications (28%). Seventy-four patients (3.5% of all patients) fulfilled the criteria of APS, of whom 51% were newly diagnosed. Second positive aPL titres and titres of APS patients were significantly higher compared with positive aPL titres at the first measurement (P < 0.05). Patients with indications of arterial thrombosis and diagnostic workup/follow-up of autoimmune diseases had significantly higher levels of aCL IgG and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) IgG compared with patients with other indications.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of one or more positive aPL test was 9.9% and APS was diagnosed in 3.5% of the patients. Patients with arterial thrombosis had significantly higher anti-β2GPI IgG and aCL IgG, which should be confirmed in future studies.

Role of antiphospholipid antibodies in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria, if persistently present. LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. Because of the methodological shortcomings of immunological and clotting assays, these non-criteria aPL may be useful in patients with incomplete antibody profiles to confirm or exclude the increased risk profile. This manuscript will focus on the laboratory aspects, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

•

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) define the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

•

Laboratory criteria are lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM.

•

Lupus anticoagulant measurement, as well as solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI, show methodological challenges.

•

Antibodies against domain I of β2GPI (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies are non-criteria aPL.

•

aDI and aPS/PT may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients.

Thrombotic risk assessment in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: Validation of the adjusted-Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) in Thai patients

BACKGROUND

The adjusted-Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) has been validated and used to predict antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) related to vascular thrombosis (VT).

OBJECTIVE

To validate aGAPSS for predicted aPL-related VT and pregnancy complications (PC) in Thai systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed among Thai SLE patients with clinical manifestations; history of VT and PC, cardiovascular risk factors, and aPL profiles were collected. The aGAPSS was calculated from the sum of the risk factors (hyperlipidemia = 3.0, arterial hypertension = 1.0, anti-cardiolipin antibody = 5.0, anti-b2 glycoprotein I antibody = 4.0, and lupus anticoagulant = 4.0).

RESULTS

Of 132 SLE patients, 12 (9.1%) had VT and 5 (4.1%) had PC. When comparing the aGAPSS (median; interquartile range [IQR]) of patients with events (VT and/or PC) (6.5; IQR 3.3-9.0), VT (8.0; IQR 4.0-9.0), arterial thrombosis (3.5; IQR 1.0-5.8), and PC (9.0; IQR 8.0-11.5), and the aGAPSS of patients without an event (3.0; IQR 0-4.0), aGAPSS of patients with events was significantly higher, except in patients with arterial thrombosis. An aGAPSS of 4.5 or more was associated with risk of aPL-related VT (sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 76.7%), and an aGAPSS of 6.0 or more was associated with risk of aPL-PC (sensitivity 100%, specificity 84.0%).

CONCLUSION

The aGAPSS could predict the risk of aPL-PC and aPL-related VT in Thai SLE patients.

Assessment of antiphospholipid antibodies and calprotectin as biomarkers for discriminating mild from severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

To explore the association of thrombo-inflammatory biomarkers with severity in coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we measured antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and calprotectin in sera of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and multiplex flow immunoassay (MFIA) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (N = 105) and healthy controls (N = 38). Anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies, calprotectin, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also measured. We assessed the potential correlation between calprotectin levels and various laboratory parameters that were measured during the hospitalization period. After stratifying COVID-19 patients into two groups by their oxygenation status or acute respiratory distress syndrome presentation, the discriminatory performance of each biomarker was evaluated.

RESULTS

A high proportion of COVID-19 patients (29.5%, 31/105) had low aCL IgM titers that were detectable by ELISA but mostly below the detection limit of MFIA. Calprotectin levels in severe groups of COVID-19 were significantly higher than those in non-severe groups, while CRP levels revealed no significant differences. Serum calprotectin levels showed strong to moderate degree of correlation with other routinely used parameters including peak levels of CRP, ferritin, procalcitonin, BUN, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, but a negative correlation with minimal lymphocyte count and CD4⁺ T cells. The discriminatory performance was highest for calprotectin in discriminating severe groups of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum calprotectin levels were significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 cases. The prevalence of clinically significant aPL did not differ. The link between calprotectin and inflammatory pathway in COVID-19 may help improve the management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Thrombophilia testing in the era of direct oral anticoagulants

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly recognised in primary and secondary care practice. The arrival of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has made the management of VTE easier and more convenient. Some patients established on DOACs may need screening for underlying thrombophilias as certain thrombophilic conditions are known to confer a higher thrombosis risk, although the guidelines for when and how to test for a thrombophilia, especially in a patient taking a DOAC, are unclear. This literature review aims to examine when thrombophilia screening should take place in a patient already taking a DOAC, the effect of DOACs on thrombophilia tests, and analyse whether DOACs are safe and effective in both inherited and acquired thrombophilias.