Role of anti-domain 1-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies in the diagnosis and risk stratification of antiphospholipid syndrome

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.

The impact of antiphospholipid antibodies/antiphospholipid syndrome on systemic lupus erythematosus

aPLs are a major determinant of the increased cardiovascular risk in patients with SLE. They adversely affect clinical manifestations, damage accrual and prognosis. Apart from the antibodies included in the 2006 revised classification criteria for APS, other non-classical aPLs might help in identifying SLE patients at increased risk of thrombotic events. The best studied are IgA anti-β2-glycoprotein I, anti-domain I β2-glycoprotein I and aPS-PT. Major organ involvement includes kidney and neuropsychiatric systems. aPL/APS severely impacts pregnancy outcomes. Due to increased thrombotic risk, these patients require aggressive cardiovascular risk factor control. Primary prophylaxis is based on low-dose aspirin in high-risk patients. Warfarin is the gold-standard drug for secondary prophylaxis.

Thrombotic risk assessment in antiphospholipid syndrome: do noncriteria antibodies contribute?

Background/aim

In this cross-sectional study, it was aimed to test the predictive value of noncriteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in addition to the global antiphospholipid syndrome score (GAPSS) in predicting vascular thrombosis (VT) in a cohort of patients with APS and aPL (+) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Material and methods

This study included 50 patients with primary APS, 68 with SLE/APS, and 52 with aPL (+) SLE who were classified according to VT as VT ± pregnancy morbidity (PM), PM only or aPL (+) SLE. Antiphospholipid serology consisting of lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin G (IgG)/IgM/IgA, antibeta2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM/IgA, antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM and antidomain-I (aDI) IgG was determined for each patient. The GAPSS and adjusted GAPSS (aGAPSS) were calculated for each patient, as previously defined. Logistic regression analysis was carried out with thrombosis as the dependent variable and high GAPSS, aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG as independent variables.

Results

The mean GAPSS and aGAPSS of the study population were 11.6 ± 4.4 and 9.6 ± 3.8. Both the VT ± PM APS (n = 105) and PM only APS (n = 13) groups had significantly higher GAPSS and aGAPSS values compared to the aPL (+) SLE (n = 52) group. The patients with recurrent thrombosis had higher aGAPSS but not GAPSS than those with a single thrombotic event. The computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that a GAPSS ≥13 and aGAPSS ≥10 had the best predictive values for thrombosis. Logistic regression analysis including a GAPSS ≥13, aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG showed that none of the factors other than a GAPSS ≥13 could predict thrombosis.

Conclusion

Both the GAPSS and aGAPSS successfully predict the thrombotic risk in aPL (+) patients and aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG do not contribute to high a GAPSS or aGAPSS.

Antibodies to Domain I β2-Glycoprotein 1 in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

The role of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), which are not included in the Sydney diagnostic criteria, in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical significance of IgG antibodies for domain 1 of β2-glycoprotein 1 (β2-GP1), IgG anti-β2-GP1DI, in patients with APS with and without SLE. The study included 187 patients with APS with or without SLE, 49 patients formed the comparison group, and 100 apparently healthy individuals formed the control group. IgG/IgM antibodies to cardiolipin (aCL) and IgG/IgM anti-β2-GP1 were determined by enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) in patients with or without APS, and IgG anti-β2-GP1DI was determined by chemiluminescence assay (CLA) in all patients and controls. IgG anti-β2-GP1DI was detected in 37 (71%) of 52 patients with primary APS (PAPS), in 6 (50%) of 12 patients with probable APS, in 42 (71%) of 59 patients with SLE + APS, in 17 (26%) of 64 patients with SLE, in 1 (2%) of the comparison group, and in none of the control group. IgG anti-β2-GP1DI was significantly associated with PAPS and SLE + APS compared with the patients with SLE (p = 0.0002 and 0.0001, respectively). The association of IgG anti-β2-GP1DI with clinical manifestations of APS (thrombosis (p = 0.001) and obstetric pathology (p = 0.04)) was detected. There was a significant association of IgG anti-β2-GP1DI with arterial thrombosis (p = 0.002) and with late gestational obstetric pathology (p = 0.01). High specificity of IgG anti-β2-GP1DI depending on the diagnosis and clinical manifestations of APS despite low sensitivity was noted: specificity was 84% for thrombosis, 94% for obstetric pathology, and 89% for APS. Isolated IgG anti-β2-GP1DI positivity was reported in 2% of 50 aPL-negative patients and was not associated with APS manifestations. The frequency of IgG anti-β2-GP1DI detection was higher in the patients with APS compared to the patients with SLE, comparison group, and control (p < 0.05). Positive IgG anti-β2-GP1DI values were significantly associated with thrombotic complications and with obstetric pathology (p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively). Specificity of IgG anti-β2-GP1DI for APS and its clinical manifestations (thrombosis and obstetric pathology) was higher than sensitivity (89, 94, and 84%, respectively).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Laboratory Approaches to Test the Function of Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder caused by the presence of aPLs (antiphospholipid antibodies, i.e., anti-β₂-glycoprotein I and anti-cardiolipin). Everyday practice in terms of laboratory diagnostics of APS includes determination of aPLs and well-known functional assays assessing for lupus anticoagulant (LA), in turn using various tests. According to recent guidelines, the recommended method for LA identification or exclusion is based on the Russell Viper Venom test and a sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time assay. Despite the fact that LA can be quantified in laboratory practice in this way, LA is still used as a binary parameter that is just one of the risk factors of thrombosis in APS. As of today, there are no other functional assays to routinely assess the risk of thrombosis in APS. It is well-known that APS patients display a wide range of clinical outcomes although they may express very similar laboratory findings. One way to solve this dilemma, could be if antibodies could be further delineated using more advanced functional tests. Therefore, we review the diagnostic approaches to test the function of aPLs. We further discuss how thrombin generation assays, and rotational thromboelastometry tests can be influenced by LA, and how experimental methods, such as flow cytometric platelet activation, surface plasmon resonance, or nano differential scanning fluorimetry can bring us closer to the puzzling interaction of aPLs with platelets as well as with their soluble protein ligand. These novel approaches may eventually enable better characterization of aPL, and also provide a better linkage to APS pathophysiology.

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.

Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION): 10-Year Update

Purpose of Review

APS ACTION is an international research network created to design and conduct large-scale, multicenter research in persistently antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)–positive patients. Given the expanding research activities of the network in the last decade since its creation, the purpose of this article is to review the scientific contributions of APS ACTION as well as future directions.

Recent Findings

APS ACTION has achieved increased international collaboration with internal and external investigators for outcome, interventional, and mechanistic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) studies. This has been linked to substantial progress in Core laboratory work, which has demonstrated that laboratories can achieve good agreement in performance of aPL assays by use of the same reagents, analyzer type, and protocols.

Summary

APS ACTION will continue to identify gaps in the existing aPL/APS literature, design mechanistic studies to elucidate underlying mechanisms, and conduct prospective, large-scale clinical studies, all for the ultimate goal of early diagnosis and improved management of aPL-positive patients.

Thrombotic risk in antiphospholipidic syndrome: From hypothesis to current evidence (Review)

Thirty-five years after it was first described, antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unanimously recognized as a systemic autoimmune disease, a major acquired thrombophilia, which can affect any arterial or venous vascular territory, explaining the great diversity of clinical manifestations. The current classification criteria updated in the International Consensus Statement for Definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome from Sydney cannot explain alone the unpredictable evolution with thrombotic events of the patients diagnosed with APS. Although the link to genetics and epigenetics has not been clearly defined as in other autoimmune diseases, it is clear that a proper stratification of thrombotic risk in the era of personalized medicine must include classic biological markers (antiphospholipid antibodies, aPL), along with the already recognized phenotypes, non-conventional serological markers, and additional genetic risk factors for thrombosis. Moreover, with advancing age, a patient with APS develops other thrombotic risk factors which include: hypertension and dyslipidemia among others. According to the classification criteria, a patient is considered to have a low, moderate or high thrombotic risk. In clinical practice, patients with the same risk score may have completely different evolutions in terms of the recurrence of thrombosis. Concerning this approach, it appears that new non-conventional serological markers, phenotype-assessment and genetic determinants have an increasing importance and should be reconsidered in a proper thrombotic risk evaluation in patients with APS, compared to the initial concept of APS as first defined.

Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria if persistently present. Progress has been made on the standardization of tests as guidelines on LAC testing and immunological assays for aCL and aβ2GPI are published. However, LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still 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. Noncriteria 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. But, aDI and aPS/PT are not included in the current diagnostic criteria and testing in daily practice is not recommended as these antibodies have no added value in the diagnosis of APS. This review will focus on the technical aspects of the laboratory methods, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS.

Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibodies: a narrative review

SUMMARY The 2006 Revised Sapporo Classification Criteria for Definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome included as laboratory criteria the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies whose accuracy was regarded as satisfactory according to the evidence available at that time. In practice, however, the sensitivity and specificity of these “criteria” of antiphospholipid antibodies are sometimes insufficient for identifying or ruling out antiphospholipid syndrome. It has been studied whether the accuracy of the laboratory diagnosis of the syndrome could be improved by testing for non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies. In this work, we review evidence on the clinical associations and diagnostic value of the most commonly studied non-criteria antibodies, namely: antiphosphatidylethanolamine, anti-annexin A5, anti-prothrombin, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex, IgA anticardiolipin, and IgG anti-domain I of the β2 glycoprotein antibodies.

Coagulation/Complement Activation and Cerebral Hypoperfusion in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system with an underlying immune-mediated and inflammatory pathogenesis. Innate immunity, in addition to the adaptive immune system, plays a relevant role in MS pathogenesis. It represents the immediate non-specific defense against infections through the intrinsic effector mechanism “immunothrombosis” linking inflammation and coagulation. Moreover, decreased cerebral blood volume (CBV), cerebral blood flow (CBF), and prolonged mean transit time (MTT) have been widely demonstrated by MRI in MS patients. We hypothesized that coagulation/complement and platelet activation during MS relapse, likely during viral infections, could be related to CBF decrease. Our specific aims are to evaluate whether there are differences in serum/plasma levels of coagulation/complement factors between relapsing-remitting (RR) MS patients (RRMS) in relapse and those in remission and healthy controls as well as to assess whether brain hemodynamic changes detected by MRI occur in relapse compared with remission. This will allow us to correlate coagulation status with perfusion and demographic/clinical features in MS patients.

Materials and Methods

This is a multi-center, prospective, controlled study. RRMS patients (1° group: 30 patients in relapse; 2° group: 30 patients in remission) and age/sex-matched controls (3° group: 30 subjects) will be enrolled in the study. Patients and controls will be tested for either coagulation/complement (C3, C4, C4a, C9, PT, aPTT, fibrinogen, factor II, VIII, and X, D-dimer, antithrombin, protein C, protein S, von-Willebrand factor), soluble markers of endothelial damage (thrombomodulin, Endothelial Protein C Receptor), antiphospholipid antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, complete blood count, viral serological assays, or microRNA microarray. Patients will undergo dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI using a 3.0-T scanner to evaluate CBF, CBV, MTT, lesion number, and volume.

Statistical Analysis

ANOVA and unpaired t-tests will be used. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Discussion

Identifying a link between activation of coagulation/complement system and cerebral hypoperfusion could improve the identification of novel molecular and/or imaging biomarkers and targets, leading to the development of new effective therapeutic strategies in MS.

Clinical Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04380220.

16th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force Report on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) remains a clinical challenge for practitioners, with several controversial points that have not been answered so far. This Obstetric APS Task Force met on the 16th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Manchester, England, to discuss about treatment, diagnostic and clinical aspects of the disease. This report will address evidence-based medicine related to obstetric APS, including limitations on our current management, the relationship between antibodies against domain 1 of β2GPI and obstetric morbidity, hydroxychloroquine use in patients with obstetric APS and factors associated with thrombosis after obstetric APS. Finally, future directions for better understanding this complex condition are also reported by the Task Force coordinators.

Anti–Domain I β2-Glycoprotein I Antibodies and Activated Protein C Resistance Predict Thrombosis in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: TAC(I)T Study

Background

Antibodies binding to domain I of β2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and activated protein C (APC) resistance are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis in cross-sectional studies. The objective of this study was to assess their predictive value for future thromboembolic events in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) or antiphospholipid syndrome.

Methods

This prospective multicenter cohort study included consecutive patients with aPL or systemic lupus erythematosus. We followed 137 patients (43.5 ± 15.4 year old; 107 women) for a mean duration of 43.1 ± 20.7 months.

Results

We detected aDI IgG antibodies by ELISA in 21 patients. An APC sensitivity ratio (APCsr) was determined using a thrombin generation–based test. The APCsr was higher in patients with anti–domain I antibodies demonstrating APC resistance (0.75 ± 0.13 vs 0.48 ± 0.20, P &lt; 0.0001). In univariate analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for thrombosis over time was higher in patients with aDI IgG (3.31 [95% CI, 1.15–9.52]; P = 0.03) and patients with higher APC resistance (APCsr &gt;95th percentile; HR, 6.07 [95% CI, 1.69–21.87]; P = 0.006). A sensitivity analysis showed an increased risk of higher aDI IgG levels up to HR 5.61 (95% CI, 1.93–16.31; P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, aDI IgG (HR, 3.90 [95% CI, 1.33–11.46]; P = 0.01) and APC resistance (HR, 4.98 [95% CI, 1.36–18.28]; P = 0.02) remained significant predictors of thrombosis over time.

Conclusions

Our study shows that novel tests for antibodies recognizing domain I of β2-glycoprotein I and functional tests identifying APC resistance are significant predictors of thrombosis over time and may be useful for risk stratification.

How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on the laboratory tests necessary for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). For the interpretation of the results of the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), understanding of all pitfalls and interferences is necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress has been made on the standardization of aPL tests and current guidelines for detection of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) are useful tools. LAC measurement remains a complex procedure with many pitfalls and interference by anticoagulant therapy. Solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI still show inter-assay differences. Measuring LAC, aCL, and aβ2GPI allows making antibody profiles that help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies, may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients, but are not included in the current diagnostic criteria as no added value in the diagnosis of APS has been illustrated so far. The laboratory diagnosis of APS remains challenging. LAC, aCL, aβ2GPI IgG, and IgM should be performed to increase diagnostic efficacy, with an integrated interpretation of all results and an interpretative comment. A close interaction between clinical pathologists and clinicians is mandatory.

Anti-phospholipid antibodies and reproductive failures

Anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) recapitulates the link between autoimmunity and pregnancy failure: Acquired anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL) play a pathogenic role in pregnancy complications. The diagnosis of obstetric APS can easily be pursued when women present with laboratory and clinical features fulfilling the international classification criteria. Standard therapeutic approach to obstetric APS consists in the association of anti-platelet agents and anticoagulants. Most patients achieve a live birth thanks to conventional treatment; however, approximately 20% fail to respond and are managed with additional therapeutic tools added on the top of conventional treatment. Surely, a refinement of risk stratification tools would allow early identification of high-risk pregnancies that warrant tailored treatment. In real life, obstetricians and rheumatologists face complex diagnostic scenarios including women with pregnancy morbidities other than those mentioned in classification criteria such as one or two early losses and premature birth after 34 weeks due to preeclampsia or placental insufficiency, women with low-titer aPL not fulfilling criteria laboratory requirements, women with positive non-criteria aPL, asymptomatic aPL carriers, and infertile women found to be aPL-positive. This review focuses on some of the several unanswered questions related to diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic aspects in obstetric APS.

Antiphospholipid antibody levels in early systemic lupus erythematosus: are they associated with subsequent mortality and vascular events?

OBJECTIVES

aPL are present in between 20 and 30% of patients with SLE. They can cause vascular events (VE) or pregnancy morbidity. aCL and anti-beta-2-glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) are measured in clinical practice. Domain I (DI) of β2GPI is the main site for aPL binding. We investigated the prevalence of IgG anti-DI, aCL and anti-β2GPI antibodies in early SLE and their association with mortality and development of VE.

METHODS

Samples from 501 patients with SLE that had been obtained and stored early during their disease were tested for IgG anti-DI, aCL and anti-β2GPI antibodies by ELISA. LA status and history of VE were obtained by reviewing medical records. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to investigate mortality and occurrence of VE, comparing groups with and without aPL in early disease.

RESULTS

Of 501 patients, 190 (38%) had at least one of these aPL, of whom 112 had anti-DI alone. Of 276 patients with complete vascular history, 83 had experienced VE. The 39 patients who were double or triple-ELISA-positive for any combination of the three aPL were more likely to have or develop lupus anticoagulant (P<0.0001) than those who were single-ELISA-positive or negative. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, they showed a trend towards developing more VE (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

IgG anti-DI antibodies were present in early serum samples from 29% of patients and were more common than IgG aCL or anti-β2GPI. There was some evidence suggesting that double or triple-ELISA-positivity for these antibodies identified a group with worse outcomes.

Global antiphospholipid syndrome score and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I domain I for thrombotic risk stratification in antiphospholipid syndrome: A four-year prospective study

Objective

This study aimed to assess prospectively the role of anti-ß2-glycoprotein I domain I antibody (aß2GPI-DI) and the Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (GAPSS) in identifying antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients at higher risk of a new event.

Methods

Thrombotic APS patients were followed from May 2013 to July 2017. At baseline, we measured lupus anticoagulant, IgG/IgM anticardiolipin, anti-ß2-glycoprotein I, antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) and IgG aß2GPI-DI, and calculated GAPSS for each patient.

Results

A total of 44 patients (age 43 ± 10 years, 89% female, 73% primary APS) were followed for 39 months (range 9–46 months). Four new thromboses occurred, two of them after vitamin K antagonist interruption. Recurrent patients presented higher GAPSS (median 20) and were triple and aß2GPI-DI positive; non-recurrent patients had lower GAPSS (median 10.5, range 0–20) and lower ratio of triple (33%) and aß2GPI-DI positivities (38%). aß2GPI-DI was associated with higher GAPSS (median 19 vs. 7, p < 0.001; Pearson correlation 0.82, p < 0.001) and had a greater proportion of triple (83% vs. 4%, p < 0.001) and aPS/PT positivity (94% vs. 50%, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Our data show a significant correlation between a validated risk score such as GAPSS and the novel antiphospholipid antibody aß2GPI-DI. Future studies are needed. However, one could speculate a role of aß2GPI-DI as a risk-stratifying tool for thrombotic events in APS.

Anti-domain 1 β2 glycoprotein antibodies increase expression of tissue factor on monocytes and activate NK Cells and CD8+ cells in vitro

Background

β2-Glycoprotein I (β2GPI) represents the major antigenic target for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), with domain 1 (D1) being identified as a risk factor for thrombosis and pregnancy complications in APS. We aimed to analyse the ability of aPL, and particularly anti-D1 β2GPI, to stimulate prothrombotic and proinflammatory activity of immune cells in vitro.

Methods

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from 11 healthy individuals were incubated with: (1) “anti-D1(+)”—pooled plasma derived from patients suspected of having APS contained anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), lupus anticoagulant (LA), anti-β2GPI and anti-D1 β2GPI; (2) “anti-D1(−)”—pooled plasma from patients suspected of having APS contained aCL, LA, anti-β2GPI, and negative for anti-D1 β2GPI; (3) “seronegative”—negative for aPL.

Results

The presence of anti-D1(+) and anti-D1(−) plasma resulted in increased HLA-DR and CD11b on monocytes. While only anti-D1(+) plasma markedly increased the percentage and median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of CD142 (tissue factor, TF) on monocytes in comparison with those cultured with anti-D1(−) and seronegative plasma. Anti-D1(+) plasma resulted in increased percentage and MFI of activation marker CD69 on NK and T cytotoxic cells. Expression of IgG receptor FcγRIII(CD16) on monocytes and NK cells was down-regulated by the anti-D1(+) plasma.

Conclusions

Taking together, our study shows the ability of patient-derived aPL to induce immune cell activation and TF expression on monocytes. For the first time, we demonstrated the influence of anti-D1 β2GPI on the activation status of monocytes, NK and cytotoxic T cells. Our findings further support a crucial role of D1 epitope in the promotion of thrombosis and obstetrical complications in APS.

[Seronegative antiphospholipid syndrome: Myth or reality?]

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by thrombosis and/or obstetrical manifestations and the persistent presence, at least 12 weeks apart, of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as lupus anticoagulant (LA) and/or anticardiolipin antibodies (ACL) and/or anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI). The finding of patients with clinical profile highly suggestive of APS but who are negative for conventional biological criteria has led to the concept of seronegative APS. In the last few years, new antigen targets and methodological approaches have been employed to more clearly identify this syndrome in patients with thrombosis or obstetrical complications without conventional aPL. Although seronegative APS is still controversial, there is increasing recognition of the existence of this subgroup. However, clinical relevance of non conventional aPL need to be confirmed by efforts toward standardizing new biological tools and longitudinal studies involving large cohort of patients.

Detection of anti-domain I antibodies by chemiluminescence enables the identification of high-risk antiphospholipid syndrome patients: A multicenter multiplatform study

BACKGROUND

Classification of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies predominantly on detecting antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Antibodies against a domain I (DI) epitope of anti-β2glycoprotein I (β2GPI) proved to be pathogenic, but are not included in the current classification criteria.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the clinical value of detecting anti-DI IgG in APS.

PATIENTS/METHODS

From eight European centers 1005 patients were enrolled. Anti-cardiolipin (CL) and anti-β2GPI were detected by four commercially available solid phase assays; anti-DI IgG by the QUANTA Flash® β2GPI domain I assay.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (ORs) of anti-DI IgG for thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity proved to be higher than those of the conventional assays. Upon restriction to patients positive for anti-β2GPI IgG, anti-DI IgG positivity still resulted in significant ORs. When anti-DI IgG was added to the criteria aPLs or used as a substitute for anti-β2GPI IgG/anti-CL IgG, ORs for clinical symptoms hardly improved. Upon removing anti-DI positive patients, lupus anticoagulant remained significantly correlated with clinical complications. Anti-DI IgG are mainly present in high-risk triple positive patients, showing higher levels. Combined anti-DI and triple positivity confers a higher risk for clinical symptoms compared to only triple positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of anti-DI IgG resulted in higher ORs for clinical manifestations than the current APS classification criteria. Regardless of the platform used to detect anti-β2GPI/anti-CL, addition of anti-DI IgG measured by QUANTA Flash® did not improve the clinical associations, possibly due to reduced exposure of the pathogenic epitope of DI. Our results demonstrate that anti-DI IgG potentially helps in identifying high-risk patients.

The role of beta-2-glycoprotein I in health and disease associating structure with function: More than just APS

Beta-2-Glycoprotein I (β2GPI) plays a number of essential roles throughout the body. β2GPI, C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin are the only three proteins that possess the dual capability to up and down regulate the complement and coagulation systems depending upon external stimulus. Clinically, β2GPI is the primary antigen in the autoimmune condition antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), which is typically characterised by pregnancy morbidity and vascular thrombosis. This protein is also capable of adopting at least two distinct structural forms, but it has been argued that several other intermediate forms may exist. Thus, β2GPI is a unique protein with a key role in haemostasis, homeostasis and immunity. In this review, we examine the genetics, structure and function of β2GPI in the body and how these factors may influence its contribution to disease pathogenesis. We also consider the clinical implications of β2GPI in the diagnosis of APS and as a potentially novel therapeutic target.

Does seronegative obstetric APS exist? "pro" and "cons"

Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) is the commonest treatable cause of recurrent miscarriage and pharmacological treatment of pregnant patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) should aim at preventing obstetric complications and maternal thrombotic events. Conventional treatment for patients with an established diagnosis of obstetric APS (OAPS), generally resulting in over 70-80% successful pregnancies. Since seropositive (SP)-APS and seronegative (SN)-APS patients had shown similar clinical profiles, patients with SN- OAPS, as well as SP-OAPS, should receive combined treatment in order to improve the pregnancy prognosis; indeed, current standard of care increased good pregnancy outcome in SN-APS, with similar effect to confirmed APS. The above data suggest that there are patients with the clinical manifestations of OAPS but persistently negative to conventional aPL that need to be identified to ensure adequate therapy and therefore a better prognosis. The clinical utility of non-criteria aPL in the diagnosis of SN-APS is still a matter of debate. In the last decade more and more studies have reported the presence of patients suffering from SN-APS in which non-conventional ("non-criteria") aPL might be present or antibodies may be detected using methodological approaches different from the traditional assays. To improve test standardization large prospective, multicenter, and multinational studies are needed. Therefore, when assessing a patient with clinical manifestations consistent with OAPS but aPL negative using the conventional available assays, the clinician should consider the possibility that the patient is affected with SN-APS.

Laboratory Evaluation of Antiphospholipid Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Anti-β2 glycoprotein I domain I (anti-domain I) and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies are present in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS); however, their use in evaluation remains unclear.

METHODS

Diagnostic attributes of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anti-domain I IgG, anti-cardiolipin, anti-β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI), and aPS/PT IgG and IgM antibodies were assessed in 216 patients evaluated for APS.

RESULTS

LAC had the best odds ratio (OR, 14.2) while that for anti-domain 1 IgG was comparable to anti-β2GPI IgG (OR, 8.3 vs 9.4) but higher than all others. Significant correlations were observed for thrombosis (P = .03) and pregnancy-related morbidity (P = .001) with anti-domain IgG and for any thrombosis with aPS/PT IgG (P = .006). Use of noncriteria antiphospholipid with or without criteria markers did not significantly increase the probability to diagnose APS.

CONCLUSIONS

Noncriteria tests can contribute to diagnosis and stratification of APS but do not improve diagnostic yield. Optimal strategies for implementation require prospective investigation.

Obstetric and vascular antiphospholipid syndrome: same antibodies but different diseases?

Recurrent thrombosis and miscarriages are the main clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Although most patients display both clinical signs, some patients can have isolated vascular or obstetric variants. Emerging data raise the question of whether obstetric and vascular APS are the same or different diseases. An important difference between the two conditions is that a thrombophilic state is a common feature in vascular APS, whereas clot occlusions of the decidual spiral arteries are seldom observed in obstetric APS, and infarctions are found in only one-third of APS placentae. Conversely, inflammation, which is undetectable in vascular APS, is frequently observed in the placentae of patients with obstetric APS and has been documented in the placentae of pregnant mice with fetal loss mediated by antiphospholipid antibodies. Attempts to identify different antibodies or epitopes responsible for the two clinical manifestations of APS have so far been unsuccessful. Possible mechanisms exist that might explain the development of the two clinical presentations, including the tissue distribution and expression level of the main target antigen of antiphospholipid antibodies, β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI). The identification of the factors that promote the onset of either obstetric or vascular APS has important diagnostic and therapeutic implications.

Anti-domain 1 of beta2-glycoprotein I aids risk stratification in lupus anticoagulant-positive patients

Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is considered a risk factor for thromboembolism (TE) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). However, quite a few patients diagnosed with LA positivity do not suffer these adverse events. Further testing of anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-beta2-glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) or anti-domain 1 of β2GPI (anti-D1) may help to assess the occurrence risk of TE and APOs. Therefore, we aimed to study how to stratify LA-positive patients. In our study, 167 LA-positive patients were consecutively enrolled from January 2015 to December 2016. Serum aCL and anti-β2GPI (IgG, IgM and IgA) and anti-D1 IgG were simultaneously measured. Among these patients, 114 (68.3%) were followed for an average of 36.5 months for TE and APOs. The outcomes showed that 105 patients experienced TE and/or APOs, and 62 patients were LA carriers. Anti-D1 had good consistency with triple positivity (LA+, aCL+, anti-β2GPI+) (kappa = 0.742). Elevated anti-D1 was related to increased risks for TE [odds ratio (OR) 29.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.05-110.74] and APOs (OR 8.73, 95% CI 3.41-22.31). Area under curve showed that the diagnostic power of anti-D1 for TE and APOs was 0.856 (95% CI 0.743-0.970) and 0.682 (95% CI 0.599-0.765), respectively. Survival analysis revealed that patients with high anti-D1 titres had a high cumulative incidence of APOs (hazard ratio 4.66, 95% CI 1.46-14.87). In conclusion, anti-D1, based on good consistency with triple positivity in LA-positive patients, has a stronger association with TE and APOs and, to some degree, could predict pregnancy outcomes. Therefore, anti-D1 may aid risk stratification in LA-positive patients.

First-Line, Non-Criterial Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing for the Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome in Clinical Practice: A Combination of Anti-β2 -Glycoprotein I Domain I and Anti-Phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Complex Antibodies Tests

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of a combination of anti-β₂ -glycoprotein I (anti-β₂ GPI) domain I antibody and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex (anti-PS/PT) antibody tests for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study involved a cohort of the patients who visited our clinic from April 2005 to March 2013. Tests for anti-β₂ GPI domain I antibodies, IgG anti-PS/PT antibodies, and IgM anti-PS/PT antibodies, together with tests for criteria-defined antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), were performed in all patients. The total antiphospholipid score (aPL-S) was calculated for each patient according to titers of and positivity for aPL.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 157 patients (51 patients with APS and 106 with non-APS autoimmune diseases). All 21 patients positive for both anti-β₂ GPI domain I antibodies and IgG and/or IgM (IgG/IgM) anti-PS/PT antibodies had APS with a high total aPL-S (median 46, range 26-76), as did all of the 10 patients who were positive for anti-β₂ GPI domain I antibodies but negative for IgG/IgM anti-PS/PT antibodies (median 22, range 4-39). Of the 14 patients who were positive for IgG/IgM anti-PS/PT antibodies but negative for anti-β₂ GPI domain I antibodies, 11 (79%) had APS; these individuals also had high total aPL-S values (median 23, range 11-60). In contrast, only 9 of the 112 patients (8%) with none of these antibodies had APS.

CONCLUSION

The combination of the IgG anti-β₂ GPI domain I antibody and IgG/IgM anti-PS/PT antibody tests shows a high positive predictive value for the diagnosis of APS and a strong correlation with the aPL-S. This combination as the first-line test for aPL may contribute to the simple and definite identification of APS with a high risk of thrombosis in clinical practice.

Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases are characterised by an abnormal immune system response, complement activation, cytokines dysregulation and inflammation. In last years, despite many progresses in managing these patients, it has been shown that clinical remission is reached in less than 50% of patients and a personalised and tailored therapeutic approach is still lacking resulting in a significant gap between guidelines and real-world practice. In this context, the need for biomarkers facilitating early diagnosis and profiling those individuals at the highest risk for a poor outcome has become of crucial interest. A biomarker generally refers to a measured characteristic which may be used as an indicator of some biological state or condition. Three different types of medical biomarkers has been suggested: i. mechanistic markers; ii. clinical disease markers; iii. therapeutic markers. A combination of biomarkers from these different groups could be used for an ideal more accurate diagnosis and treatment. However, although a growing body of evidence is focused on improving biomarkers, a significant amount of this information is not integrated on standard clinical care. The overarching aim of this work was to clarify the meaning of specific biomarkers during autoimmune diseases; their possible role in confirming diagnosis, predicting outcome and suggesting specific treatments.

Prevalence and Significance of Non-conventional Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients With Clinical APS Criteria

Background: The biological diagnostics of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) takes into account the persistent positivity for anticardiolipin and/or anti-β2GP1 antibodies and/or presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA). However, some non-conventional antiphospholipid antibodies have emerged that could help in the diagnosis of APS.

Objectives: To study the potential usefulness of non-conventional antiphospholipid antibodies in clinical practice.

Methods: Eighty-seven patients, aged from 15 to 92 years were included and classified in following groups: 41 patients positive for the conventional antibodies with clinical criterion of APS (31 with primary APS and 10 secondary), 17 seronegative APS (SNAPS) patients (i.e., persistent negativity for the conventional antibodies with a strong clinical suspicion of APS), 11 asymptomatic antiphospholipid antibodies carriers (i.e., persistent positivity for the conventional antibodies without clinical evidence of APS), and 18 patients presenting with a first thrombotic or obstetrical event. IgG and IgM were detected to the following antigens: phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (PS/PT) by ELISA, and phosphatidic acid, phosphatidyl-ethanolamine, phosphatidyl-glycerol, phosphatidyl-inositol, phosphatidylserine, annexin V, prothrombin by immunodot. Anti-β2GP1 IgA, and anti-β2GP1 domain 1 IgG were detected by chemiluminescence.

Results: Positivity for the non-conventional antibodies was correlated with APS severity; patients with catastrophic APS (CAPS) being positive for 10.7 (Median, Range: 5–14) non-conventional antibodies. 9/17 seronegative patients were positive for at least one of non-conventional antibodies. A study of non-supervised hierarchical clustering of all markers revealed that anti-PS/PT antibodies showed high correlation with the presence of LA. All patients with APS triple positivity (highest risk profile) exhibited also persistent positivity for anti-PS/PT antibodies.

Conclusions: Our data obtained from a prospective cohort constituted mainly by patients with primary APS, suggest that non-conventional APS antibodies may be useful for patients classified as SNAPS. They demonstrate the potential value of aPS/PT antibodies as a strong marker of APS. We propose that anti-PS/PT antibodies could be a surrogate APS biological marker of LA to classify in high-risk profile patients treated by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), in whom LA detection cannot be achieved.

Clinical profiles and risk assessment in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies

INTRODUCTION

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia associated with the presence of persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Owing to recent studies, not only APS patients but also incidentally-identified, asymptomatic aPL carriers are able to be stratified in terms of the risk of future thrombotic events, according to the variety and the titer of positive aPL tests and to the non-thrombotic, aPL-associated clinical manifestations. Areas covered: Here, we critically review (1) criteria manifestations of APS, (2) non-criteria manifestations of APS, (3) risk assessment in patients with APS and in aPL carriers, and (4) the potential role of primary thrombosis prophylaxis in aPL carriers. In addition, we discuss what we are currently able to do and what we need to do in the future for primary prophylaxis against a first thrombotic event. Expert commentary: We suggest a comprehensive algorithm to stratify thrombotic risk in aPL carriers, including criteria aPL, non-criteria aPL, their scoring systems, and non-criteria manifestations. However, further studies, particularly prospective randomized controlled trials, are highly warranted to establish an effective and tolerable treatment regimen for high risk aPL carriers.

The clinical value of assays detecting antibodies against domain I of β2-glycoprotein I in the antiphospholipid syndrome

As the clinical symptoms of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) frequently occur irrespective of the syndrome, diagnosis predominantly depends on the laboratory assays measuring the level or function of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). β2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI) is increasingly accepted as the most important target of aPLs. Anti-β2GPI antibodies constitute a heterogeneous population, but current in vivo and in vitro evidence show that especially the first domain (DI) of β2GPI contains an important pathogenic epitope. This epitope containing Glycine40-Arginine43 (G40-R43) has proven to be cryptic and only exposed when β2GPI is in its open conformation. A previous study demonstrated a highly variable exposure of the cryptic epitope in commercial anti-β2GPI assays, with implications on correct patient classification. Unexpectedly, recent unpublished data revealed impaired exposure of the pathogenic epitope in the commercially available anti-DI chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA) assay detecting specific antibodies directed to DI. In this review we summarize the laboratory and clinical performance characteristics of the different anti-DI assays in published data and conclude with inconsistent results for both the correlation of anti-DI antibodies with clinical symptoms and the added value of anti-DI antibodies in the classification criteria of APS. Additionally, we hypothesize on possible explanations for the observed discrepancies. Finally, we highly advise manufacturers to use normal pooled plasma spiked with the monoclonal anti-DI antibodies to verify correct exposure of the cryptic epitope.

Antiphospholipid syndrome – an update

Abstract. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoantibody-mediated acquired thrombophilia. It is characterized by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (APL) that are directed against phospholipid-binding plasma proteins, such as beta-2-glycoprotein I (b2GPI). Its main manifestations are recurrent vascular thromboses (so-called “thrombotic APS”) and pregnancy complications (“obstetric APS”). According to the current consensus criteria, a persistently positive functional lupus anticoagulant (LA) assay and/or the presence of anti-b2GPI and/or anti-cardiolipin antibodies, together with clinical symptoms, is mandatory for the diagnosis of APS. Other clinical features, such as thrombocytopenia, Coombs-positive haemolytic anaemia, heart valve disease, renal microangiopathy and neurologic disorders are also common in APL-positive patients. APS can be associated with other autoimmune disorders, such as systemic lupus erythematosus. In rare cases, catastrophic APS (CAPS) occurs, with the development of excessive thrombosis at multiple sites, usually affecting small vessels and leading to multi-organ dysfunction and organ failure. Treatment usually comprises antithrombotic therapy using antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. However, there is no consensus concerning the intensity or duration of therapy. Despite apparently adequate anticoagulation, the risk of recurrent thrombosis remains high. For patients with CAPS, a combined therapeutic approach that includes anticoagulation, glucocorticoids, plasma exchange and/or intravenous immunoglobulin seems to be the best treatment option.

Keywords: Antiphospholipid syndrome, lupus anticoagulants, anti-cardiolipin, anti-beta-2-glycoprotein I, vascular thrombosis, pregnancy complication

Prevalence, persistence and clinical correlations of classic and novel antiphospholipid antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus

Objectives

aPL are frequently present in SLE. In a well characterized SLE cohort we aimed at investigating the prevalence of aPL and assessing their analytical performance and clinical association by testing criteria specificities including LA, aCL IgG and IgM, anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 (antiβ2GP1) IgG and IgM, as well as the non-criteria aPS-PT IgG and IgM and anti-β2GP1 domain 1 (aD1) IgG.

Methods

We included 178 patients satisfying the ACR SLE classification criteria, from whom 283 samples and thrombotic events were collected longitudinally. Each sample was tested for criteria and non-criteria aPL using validated techniques in a single centre.

Results

All assays provided highly reproducible results. Of the samples, 42.5% were positive for at least one criteria assay, 20.5% showed double positivity and 12.6% triple positivity. All criteria and non-criteria specificities persisted over time. Most antibody titres were only moderately correlated; however, strong correlation was observed on one hand between aD1 IgG, antiβ2GP1 IgG and aCL IgG, and on the other between aPS-PT IgG and LA. aD1 IgG titres were extremely elevated in triple-positive samples. aPS-PT IgG by itself, and jointly with LA, was associated with thrombosis, an association mostly driven by venous thrombotic events.

Conclusions

In this SLE cohort, the non-criteria aPL aD1 IgG and aPS-PT IgG performed differently. aD1 IgG was highly enriched in triple-positive samples, and aPS-PT IgG, jointly with LA, was associated with thrombotic events.

Clinical value of anti-domain I-β2Glycoprotein 1 antibodies in antiphospholipid antibody carriers. A single centre, prospective observational follow-up study

BACKGROUND

There seems to be a clear correlation between antibodies against domain I (anti-DI) of β2Glycoprotein I and severe clinical profiles in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients. We investigated the clinical significance of anti-DI antibodies in a cohort of aPL carriers.

METHODS

One hundred and five carriers persistently positive for IgG anti-β2Glycoprotein 1 antibodies (a-β2GPI) and/or IgG anticardiolipin (aCL) and/or lupus anticoagulants (LAC) were tested for the presence of anti-DI antibodies using the QUANTA Flash® Beta2GPI-Domain I chemiluminescence immunoassay.

RESULTS

Anti-DI antibodies were detected in 44 aPL carriers (41.9%) and they were significantly associated to triple aPL positivity (LAC plus IgG a-β2GPI plus IgG aCL antibodies). Isolated LAC and a-β2GPI antibodies were significantly associated to anti-DI negative aPL carriers. During a 82.2 month mean follow-up, ten aPL carriers (9.5%) developed a first thrombotic event so becoming APS patients. Anti-DI antibodies, triple aPL positivity, thromboembolic risk factors and autoimmune disorders significantly prevailed in carriers becoming APS. Logistic regression analysis showed that anti-DI positivity was an independent risk factor for thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-DI antibody positivity can be considered a new risk factor predictive of the first thrombotic event in aPL carriers, instead, negative anti-DI may be useful to identify low-risk aPL carriers.

Assessment of diagnostic methods for the detection of anticardiolipin and anti-βeta2 glycoprotein I antibodies in patients under routine evaluation for antiphospholipid syndrome

BACKGROUND

We assessed the performance characteristics and correlations of the traditional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA) for detecting IgG and IgM antibodies to cardiolipin (aCL) and beta₂ glycoprotein (anti-β₂GPI) antibodies in patients under routine evaluation for APS.

METHODS

Patients (n = 216) referred to ARUP Laboratories for lupus anticoagulant (LAC) and/or aCL or anti-β₂GPI IgG/IgM antibodies evaluation were assessed by ELISA and CIA methods. Diagnostic accuracies, correlations between methods and specific clinical manifestations in APS were investigated.

RESULTS

The areas under the curve (%) for APS using LAC with CIA (74, 95% CI: 65-82) or ELISA (70, 95% CI: 61-79) aPLs were comparable. The overall agreements and linear regression correlations between methods for aPL antibody of the same specificity were variable: aCL IgG 87.3%; R² = 0.7491, aCL IgM 71.6%; R² = 0.2656, anti-β₂GPI IgG 77.2%; R² = 0.7688 and anti-β₂GPI IgM 81.7%; R² = 0.3305.

CONCLUSIONS

With inclusion of LAC, the ELISA and CIA show comparable performance for the diagnosis of APS. However, correlations of APS-specific manifestations were dependent on method of detecting the aPL antibodies suggesting platforms may not be used interchangeable.

How to Identify High-Risk APS Patients: Clinical Utility and Predictive Values of Validated Scores

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a clinical disorder characterised by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in the persistence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that are pathogenic and have pro-coagulant activities. Thrombosis in APS tends to recur and require prophylaxis; however, the stereotypical treatment for APS patients is inadequate and stratification of the thrombotic risks is important as aPL are prevalently observed in various diseases or elderly population.

RECENT FINDINGS

It is previously known that the multiple positive aPL or high titre aPL correlate to thrombotic events. To progress the stratification of thrombotic risks in APS patients and to quantitatively analyse those risks, antiphospholipid score (aPL-S) and the Global Anti-phospholipid Syndrome Score (GAPSS) were defined. These scores were raised from the large patient cohort data and either aPL profile classified in detail (aPL-S) or simplified aPL profile with classical thrombotic risk factors (GAPSS) was put into a scoring system. Both the aPL-S and GAPSS have shown a degree of accuracy in identifying high-risk APS patients, especially those at a high risk of thrombosis. However, there are several areas requiring improvement, or at least that clinicians should be aware of, before these instruments are applied in clinical practice. One such issue is standardisation of the aPL tests, including general testing of phosphatidylserine-dependent antiprothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT). Additionally, clinicians may need to be aware of the patient's medical history, particularly with respect to the incidence of SLE, which influences the cutoff value for identifying high-risk patients.

Clinical Risk Assessment in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Current Landscape and Emerging Biomarkers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laboratory criteria for the classification of antiphospholipid syndrome include the detection of a lupus anticoagulant and/or anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies. However, the majority of patients who test positive in these assays do not have thrombosis. Current risk-stratification tools are largely limited to the antiphospholipid antibody profile and traditional thrombotic risk factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Novel biomarkers that correlate with disease activity and potentially provide insight into future clinical events include domain 1 specific anti-β₂GPI antibodies, antibodies to other phospholipids or phospholipid/protein antigens (such as anti-PS/PT), and functional/biological assays such as thrombin generation, complement activation, levels of circulating microparticles, and annexin A5 resistance. Clinical risk scores may also have value in predicting clinical events. Biomarkers that predict thrombosis risk in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies have been long sought, and several biomarkers have been proposed. Ultimately, integration of biomarkers with established assays and clinical characteristics may offer the best chance of identifying patients at highest risk of APS-related complications.

Effects of anti-β2GPI antibodies on VWF release from human umbilical vein endothelial cells and ADAMTS13 activity

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by recurrent thromboembolic events in the setting of pathologic autoantibodies, some of which are directed to β2-Glycoprotein 1 (β2GPI). The mechanisms of thrombosis in APS appear to be multifactorial and likely include a component of endothelial activation. Among other things, activated endothelium secretes von Willebrand factor, a hemostatic protein that in excess can increase the risk of thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that anti-β2GPI antibodies could regulate the release and modulation of VWF from endothelial cells.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Isolated anti-β2GPI antibodies from patients with APS were assayed for their ability to induced VWF release from HUVECs and modulate the effects of ADAMTS13 in a shear-dependent assay.

RESULTS

We observed that anti-β2GPI antibodies from some patients with APS induced VWF release from human endothelial cells but did not induce formation of cell-anchored VWF-platelet strings. Finally, we also determined that one of the Anti-β2GPI antibodies tested can inhibit the function of ADAMTS13, the main modulator of extracellular VWF.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that VWF and ADAMTS13 may play a role in the prothrombotic phenotype of APS.

Beyond thrombosis: Anti-β2GPI domain 1 antibodies identify late pregnancy morbidity in anti-phospholipid syndrome

Antibodies against β2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) have been identified as the main pathogenic autoantibody subset in anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS); the most relevant epitope is a cryptic and conformation-dependent structure on β2GPI domain (D) 1. Anti-β2GPI domain profiling has been investigated in thrombotic APS, leading to the identification of antibodies targeting D1 as the main subpopulation. In contrast, scarce attention has been paid to obstetric APS, hence this study aimed at characterizing the domain reactivity with regards to pregnancy morbidity (PM). To this end, 135 women with persistently positive, medium/high titre anti-β2GPI IgG, without any associated systemic autoimmune diseases and at least one previous pregnancy were included: 27 asymptomatic carriers; 53 women with obstetric APS; 20 women with thrombotic APS; and 35 women with both thrombotic and obstetric complications. Anti-D1 and anti-D4/5 antibodies were tested using a chemiluminescent immunoassay and a research ELISA assay, respectively (QUANTA Flash^® β2GPI Domain 1 IgG and QUANTA Lite^® β2GPI D4/5 IgG, Inova Diagnostics). Positivity for anti-D1 antibodies, but not anti-D4/5 antibodies, was differently distributed across the 4 subgroups of patients (p < 0.0001) and significantly correlated with thrombosis (χ2 = 17.28, p < 0.0001) and PM (χ2 = 4.28, p = 0.039). Patients with triple positivity for anti-phospholipid antibodies displayed higher anti-D1 titres and lower anti-D4/5 titres compared to women with one or two positive tests (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.005, respectively). Reactivity against D1 was identified as a predictor for PM (OR 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-5.0, p = 0.017); in particular, anti-D1 antibodies were predictive of late PM, conveying an odds ratio of 7.3 (95% CI 2.1-25.5, p = 0.022). Positivity for anti-D1 antibodies was not associated with early pregnancy loss. Anti-D4/5 antibodies were not associated with clinical APS manifestations. As a whole, our data suggest that anti-D1 antibodies are significantly associated not only with thrombosis, but also with late PM, while positive anti-D4/5 antibodies are not predictive of thrombosis or PM.