16th International congress on antiphospholipid antibodies task force report on clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome

Assessment of the 2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria in a Chinese cohort: Impact on clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in a Chinese cohort, and compare them with the Sapporo and revised Sapporo criteria.

METHODS

A cohort comprising 436 patients diagnosed with APS and 514 control subjects was enrolled, including 83 with seronegative APS and 86 classified as antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) carriers. We assessed IgG and IgM anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies using ELISA, along with a systematic collection of lupus anticoagulant data. Subsequently, we compared the sensitivity and specificity across the three classification criteria.

RESULTS

The 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria exhibited improved specificity at 98 %, surpassing the revised Sapporo (90 %) and original Sapporo (91 %) criteria. However, this came with decreased sensitivity at 82 %, in contrast to higher sensitivities in the revised Sapporo (98 %) and Sapporo (91 %) criteria. Examining individual components sheds light on the scoring system's rationale within the new criteria. The inclusion of microvascular thrombosis, cardiac valve disease, and thrombocytopenia improved the identification of nine patients previously classified as "probable APS". Insufficient scoring in 78 previously diagnosed APS individuals was linked to traditional risk factor evaluations for thrombotic events, the emphasis on determining whether obstetric events are linked to severe preeclampsia (PEC) or placental insufficiency (PI), and the lower scores assigned to IgM aCL and/or aβ2GPI antibody. Seronegative APS remained a challenge, as non-criteria aPL and other methods were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

The new criteria presented notable advancements in specificity. This study provides detailed insights into the strengths and possible challenges of the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria, enhancing our understanding of their impact on clinical practice.

Performance validation of the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria in an antiphospholipid syndrome cohort

BACKGROUND

The 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria were developed with higher specificity but lower sensitivity compared with the 2006 Sydney revised classification criteria.

OBJECTIVES

To validate the performance of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria in a large Chinese APS cohort.

METHODS

This was a single-center cohort study. Inclusion criteria aligned with the entry criteria of 2023 criteria. APS classification by "expert consensus panel" served as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between the 2023 and 2006 criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients with a mean age of 38.55 ± 12.67 years were enrolled, of whom 366 (69.58%) were female and 182 (34.60%) had systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Among them, 407 (77.38%) patients were classified as APS by experts. The 2023 criteria demonstrated higher overall specificity than the 2006 criteria (0.983 vs 0.950), while sensitivity was relatively lower (0.818 vs 0.853). The sensitivity of the 2023 criteria improved for patients with SLE (0.860 vs 0.825), microvascular manifestations (0.867 vs 0.786), cardiac valve disease (0.903 vs 0.774), and thrombocytopenia (0.811 vs 0.790). Reduced sensitivity of the 2023 criteria was linked to the omission of certain microvascular manifestations, a stricter definition of pregnancy morbidity, and the exclusion of isolated thrombocytopenia and isolated IgM isotype antiphospholipid antibodies from meeting clinical and laboratory criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The 2023 criteria offer higher overall specificity and improved sensitivity in specific patient subsets, such as those with SLE, microvascular manifestations, cardiac valve disease, and thrombocytopenia when compared with the 2006 criteria.

Rethinking antiphospholipid syndrome to guide future management and research

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

Quantification of Antiphospholipid Antibodies: The Importance of Using an Appropriate Methodology for Each Clinical Profile

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) is associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), characterized by thrombosis and obstetric morbidity. aPLs included in APS classification criteria are lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta-2-glycoprotein-I of IgG or IgM isotypes. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is the most used diagnostic technique to determine aPLs. Recently, new automated technologies mainly based in antigen-coated beads have been developed. The aim is to compare a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (M1) and an antigen-coated bead assay (M2) in obstetric and thrombotic APS patients. All samples from the first 1020 patients received in the Immune Service Laboratory (Hospital 12 de Octubre) during the recruitment period, without exclusions, were analysed for aPLs. The weighted kappa for both methods in all the patients was 0.39 (0.30-0.47). Agreement increased to 0.56 (0.38-0.73) in patients with autoimmune disease. Sensitivity and specificity obtained for M1 were 17.1% and 89.3%, respectively, and 12.7% and 91.4% for M2. The sensibility and specificity of IgG isotypes were higher than the IgM ones. Regarding obstetric patients, M1 obtained significant diagnostic performance and had more sensitivity 23.75 (14.95-34.58) compared to M2 12.50 (6.16-21.79). In conclusion, clinical suspicion-based method selection for aPLs should be considered. To identify obstetric APS patients, solid phase methods remain more preferable.

2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria

OBJECTIVE

To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR.

METHODS

This international multidisciplinary initiative included four phases: (1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; (2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; (3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and (4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into six clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and two laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least three points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria vs the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% vs 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% vs 99%.

CONCLUSION

These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR.

METHODS

This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2 -glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versus 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%.

CONCLUSION

These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Neurologic Manifestations of Catastrophic Antiphospholipid Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Understanding of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), associated neurological manifestations, and disease-directed treatment has grown considerably over the last decade. Herein, we critically review the current and high-yield literature related to the pathophysiology, neurological presentations, and management of APS with particular emphasis on the rare and more fatal subset of APS, catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS).

RECENT FINDINGS

APS may manifest with a variety of neurologic syndromes, with cerebrovascular disease representing the most commonly encountered presentation. Diagnostic evaluation and treatment are often tailored to the specific presentation, with suspicion and testing for antiphospholipid antibodies recommended when neurologic presentations occur atypically or in younger individuals. In CAPS, which is more rapidly progressive with multiorgan involvement, potential alternative microangiopathic syndromes should be carefully considered in the differential diagnosis. To date, anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists remains the mainstay of therapy in APS while triple therapy with anticoagulation, corticosteroids, and plasma exchange is standard of care in CAPS. Immunotherapy has shown early promise in refractory cases. APS is an autoimmune clinical syndrome with neurologic presentations classically characterized by vascular thrombosis, though recent understandings suggest additional direct immune-mediated phenomena. Our understanding of the underlying pathogenic mechanisms of APS continues to grow and will continue to influence our therapeutic approaches.

An Update on Antiphospholipid Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent available evidence on epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical phenotypes, and management of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and summarize potential future research perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating evidence has further expanded our understanding of the disease, including new data about the incidence and prevalence of APS, novel pathways supporting the role of thrombo-inflammation in APS including platelet, monocyte and endothelial cell activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine and chemokine production, complement activation, neutrophil extracellular trap release, and type I interferon gene expression that could yield to new potential treatment targets, better identification of criteria and non-criteria clinical phenotypes, antiphospholipid antibody profiles and their associations with clinical outcomes, prognostic tools, and treatment strategies based on recent evidence-based recommendations for patients with thrombotic and obstetric APS, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus. Ongoing research efforts and international collaborations enhance our knowledge of this rare and often devastating syndrome and help improve patient care and health outcomes.

Antiphospholipid Antibodies and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. The Multicenter ATHERO-APS Study

Background. The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unknown. Methods. A prospective multicenter cohort study including 125 patients was conducted: 91 primary APS (PAPS), 18 APS-SLE, and 16 carriers. HFpEF was diagnosed according to the 2019 European Society of Cardiology criteria: patients with ≥5 points among major and minor functional and morphological criteria including NT-ProBNP > 220 pg/mL, left atrial (LA) enlargement, increased left ventricular filling pressure. Results. Overall, 18 (14.4%) patients were diagnosed with HFpEF; this prevalence increased from 6.3% in carriers to 13.2% in PAPS and 27.8% in APS-SLE. Patients with HFpEF were older and with a higher prevalence of hypertension and previous arterial events. At logistic regression analysis, age, arterial hypertension, anticardiolipin antibodies IgG > 40 GPL (odds ratio (OR) 3.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–10.77, p = 0.035), anti β-2-glycoprotein-I IgG > 40 GPL (OR 5.28, 1.53–18.27, p = 0.009), lupus anticoagulants DRVVT > 1.25 (OR 5.20, 95% CI 1.10–24.68, p = 0.038), and triple positivity (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.11–11.47, p = 0.033) were associated with HFpEF after adjustment for age and sex. By multivariate analysis, hypertension (OR 19.49, 95% CI 2.21–171.94, p = 0.008), age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00–1.14, p = 0.044), and aβ2GPI IgG > 40 GPL (OR 8.62, 95% CI 1.23–60.44, p = 0.030) were associated with HFpEF. Conclusion. HFpEF is detectable in a relevant proportion of APS patients. The role of aPL in the pathogenesis and prognosis of HFpEF needs further investigation.