Dos and don'ts in diagnosing antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing: An Audit on Testing Practices in a Public Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) are antibodies directed against cell membrane components and can be associated with clinical features or be asymptomatic. Testing and interpreting these antibodies is associated with many challenges and pitfalls in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To review all antiphospholipid antibody testing and describe the testing practices, indications for testing and interpretation of results to infer local challenges with aPL testing and subsequently address ways to overcome those challenges.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of all aPL testing done in a tertiary center between 2014 and 2018. Characteristics of study patients collected through chart review were described using the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and proportion for categorical variables. Group differences were compared between patients with any aPL-positive result and those with no positive result using chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and a simple regression model for numerical variables.

RESULTS

Among 414 patients undergoing aPL testing, mainly adult females, 62 (14.9%) patients had at least one positive antibody, of those, 26 (42%) had repeat testing done. Testing was mostly done for obstetric indication (107, 25.8%), with 36 patients having one or two early pregnancy losses <10 weeks as their testing indication. A total of 27 (6.5%) patients were labeled with APS/possible APS based on chart review, but on review of the testing of those patients according to classification criteria, only nine patients satisfied the criteria for APS.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the clinical challenges associated with aPL testing, including the controversies around indication for testing, the low rates of repeat testing to confirm persistence, and the common misinterpretation of results. Having an aPL testing profile, explicit reference ranges, results commentary, and close interaction between ordering physicians and laboratory staff might be starting points to overcome these challenges.

Antiphospholipid syndrome: A diagnostic challenge

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilic disorder that is characterized by thrombosis (venous, arterial and microvascular) and obstetric morbidity due to a diverse family of antibodies against phospholipid-binding proteins present in plasma. The term antiphospholipid antibody is actually a misnomer as the antibodies are not against the phospholipid per se, but target the plasma protein co-factors, which bind to anionic PLs. The exact etiology has not been elucidated and is multifactorial. The initial guidelines for the diagnosis of APS were laid down in Sapporo, 1999, which were subsequently revised as the Sydney Consensus Conference criteria in 2006. Major changes were the inclusion of β2GPI as independent laboratory criteria, addition of ischemic stroke and transient cerebral ischemia as established clinical criteria and the requirement of repeating the test after 12 weeks. The laboratory tests recommended are coagulation assays, which study the effect of lupus anticoagulant on the clotting time and immunological assays, mostly ELISAs to detect IgG and IgM antibodies against cardiolipin and/or β2 glycoprotein I. For the diagnosis of APS, at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion should be present. Limitations pertaining to the standardization, reproducibility and robustness of the currently recommended diagnostic tests still remain. Despite elaborate guidelines and syndrome defining criteria, the diagnosis of APS still remains a challenge. A greater interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory professionals is necessary for arriving at the correct diagnosis as a misdiagnosis of APS can have grave consequences.

A serum nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabolomic signature of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a rheumatic inflammatory chronic autoimmune disease inducing hypercoagulable state associated with vascular thrombosis and pregnancy loss in women. Cardiac, cerebral and vascular strokes in these patients are responsible for reduction in life expectancy. Timely diagnosis and accurate monitoring of disease are decisive to improve the accuracy of therapy. In the present work, we present a NMR-based metabolomic study of blood sera of APS patients. Our data show that individuals suffering APS have a characteristic metabolomic profile with abnormalities associated to the metabolism of methyl group donors, ketone bodies and amino acids. We have identified for the first time the metabolomic fingerprint characterizing APS disease having potential application to improve APS timely diagnosis and appropriate therapeutic approaches.

The Laboratory Diagnosis of the Antiphospholipid Syndrome

The Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) is classified based on the presence of both clinical and laboratory criteria. Both sets of criteria are subject to much review and intense research as it is becoming increasingly clear that no single test is specific for defining this autoimmune disorder. A number of leading international bodies have released guidelines in an attempt to improve the laboratory testing and reporting. The current review is an appraisal of some of the literature pertaining to the laboratory testing.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and the risk of severe and non-severe pre-eclampsia: the NOHA case-control study

BACKGROUND

pre-eclampsia (PEecl) can be defined as non-severe (NS-PEecl) or severe (S-PEecl). Our study aimed to determine the incidence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) in women with a past history of NS-PEecl or S-PEecl.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This case-control study includes 195 control women, 199 NS-PEecl patients and 143 S-PEecl patients whose plasma samples were collected 6 months after their first delivery. Each plasma was tested for lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) and antiβ2GP1 antibodies, as well as antibodies against phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex (aPS/PT) and domain I of the β2GP1.

RESULTS

When compared with the control group no significant associations were found for the NS-PEecl group after adjustment of confounding variables. For the S-PEecl group, there was an association with antiβ2GP1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) (OR 16.91, 95% CI 3.71-77.06), as well as age, obesity, smoking and multiparity. Antiβ2GP1-domain I IgG was associated with aCL, antiβ2GP1 and aPS/PT IgG in the three groups. aPS/PT IgG was associated with aCL IgG, and aPS/PT IgM was associated with aCL and antiβ2GP1 IgM in the three groups.

CONCLUSION

S-PEecl is a distinct entity from NS-PEecl and is mainly associated with the presence of antiβ2GP1 IgG. Antiβ2GP1 domain I correlates with other aPL IgG tests, and aPS/PT may be promising in patients for whom LA tests cannot be interpreted.

Systematic review of the presentation of coagulation factor VIII inhibitors in rheumatic diseases: A potential cause of life-threatening hemorrhage

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive review regarding the clinical presentation of acquired factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors, also known as "acquired hemophilia," in patients with rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

A systematic MEDLINE search was conducted to identify English-language articles published from 1993 through January 10, 2012, providing details regarding the clinical presentation, laboratory evaluation, and management of a patient(s) with newly or previously diagnosed autoimmune disease coexistent with an acquired FVIII inhibitor.

RESULTS

In total, 49 patients fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the review; the greatest percentage (24.5%) had systemic lupus erythematosus, followed by rheumatoid arthritis (16%). The majority (78%) presented with spontaneous mucocutaneous or muscular bleeding. Prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) was identified in all of the 45 patients for whom results were provided. Five patients presented with an asymptomatic prolonged aPTT, which was attributed to a lupus anticoagulant in two patients, only one of whom actually had a coexisting lupus anticoagulant. Invasive procedures led to serious bleeding in both of these patients, one of whom died as a result. The majority (59%) of patients experienced complete or partial remission of their inhibitors, most (96%) after systemic eradicative therapy. A total of three (6%) patients died as a direct result of FVIII inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although acquired FVIII inhibitors are rare in patients with autoimmune diseases, prompt diagnosis is essential to avoid extensive bleeding, which could be life threatening. Treatment requires eradication of the factor inhibitors. Rheumatologists must be able to distinguish acquired FVIII inhibitors from lupus anticoagulants.

Antiphospholipid syndrome: a clinical and laboratorial challenge

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia characterized by the presence of a heterogeneous family of antibodies that bind to plasma proteins with affinity for phospholipid surfaces. The two major protein targets of antiphospholipid antibodies are prothrombin and β2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI). APS leads to aprothrombotic state, and it is characterized by the occurrence of arterial, venous or microvascular thrombosis or recurrent fetal loss. The diagnosis of APS is based on a set of clinical criteria and the detection of lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (ACA) or anti-β2GPI in plasma. Although laboratory tests are essential for APS diagnosis, these tests have limitations associated with the robustness, reproducibility and standardization. The standardization of diagnostic tests for detection of APLAs has been a challenge and a variety of results have been obtained using different commercial kits and in-house techniques. An increased sensitivity of the ELISA kits for detection of ACA effectively has contributed to APS diagnosis. However, the lack of specificity associated with a high number of false-positive results is a clinical and laboratorial challenge, since such results may lead to mistaken clinical decisions, such as prescription of oral anticoagulant, leading to the risk of hemorrhaging. Furthermore, clinicians are often unfamiliar with these tests and have difficulty interpreting them, requiring interaction between clinical and laboratory professionals in order to ensure their correct interpretation.