The presence of non-criteria manifestations negatively affects the prognosis of seronegative antiphospholipid syndrome patients: a multicenter study

Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: How Different Is from Sidney Criteria? A Single-Center Study

This study aims to compare the demographic characteristics, clinical features, serology, and fetal-maternal outcomes between women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and those with non-criteria (NC)-APS and seronegative (SN)-APS. Two-hundred and sixty-three women with APS obstetric morbidity ever pregnant were included. Of those, 66 met the APS classification criteria, 140 were NC-APS, and 57 were SN-APS. Patients with other autoimmune diseases were excluded. Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) included early pregnancy loss, fetal death, preeclampsia, abruptio placentae, and preterm birth. The mean age of the study group was 33.6 ± 5.3 years, and patients were followed up for 129.5 ± 81.9 months. In the NC-APS group, 31 (22.1%) did not fulfill clinical and serological criteria (Subgroup A), 49 (35%) did meet clinical but not serologic criteria (Subgroup B), and 60 (42.9%) fulfilled the serologic criteria but not the clinical ones (Subgroup C). The cardiovascular risk burden was higher in the APS group, due to a higher proportion of smoking. Patients with criteria APS received more intensive treatment than patients in the other study groups. The addition of standard of care (SoC) treatment significantly improved live birth and decreased APO in all groups. Significant clinical differences were observed between the study groups. However, when treated with SoC, fetal-maternal outcomes were similar, with a significant improvement in live births and a decrease in APO. Risk stratification in patients with obstetric morbidity associated with APS can help individualize their treatment.

Non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies in antiphospholipid syndrome: Diagnostic value added

Objective

Non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) increase the diagnostic value for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and contribute to better recognition of seronegative APS (SNAPS). However, the clinical utility and the diagnostic value of non-criteria aPLs are inconsistent. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and clinical significance of 7 non-criteria aPLs in a large APS cohort.

Methods

Seven non-criteria aPLs, including anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies IgG/IgA/IgM, anti-phosphatidylethanolamine antibodies (aPE) IgG/IgA/IgM, anti-Annexin V antibodies (aAnnexinV) IgG/IgA/IgM, anti-phosphatidylserine antibodies (aPS) IgM, aPS IgG, antibodies directed against a mixture of phospholipids (APhL) IgG, and APhL IgM were tested among 175 patients with APS, 122 patients with other autoimmune diseases (as disease controls), and 50 healthy controls.

Results

In the present study, the highest prevalence of non-criteria aPLs was seen in aAnnexinV (58.86%). APhL IgG and aPS IgM showed the highest specificity (95.35%) and aPS/PT showed the highest Youden index (0.3991) for the diagnostic value of APS. The aAnnexinV also showed the highest prevalence in SNAPS (43.3%), followed by APhL IgM (21.7%), aPE (16.7%) and aPS/PT (16.7%). APhL IgG, aPS/PT, and aPS IgG showed positive association with thrombotic events in APS patients [APhL IgG: odds ratio (OR) = 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-4.34, p = 0.013; aPS/PT: OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.32-4.69, p = 0.004; aPS IgG: OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.01-3.60, p = 0.046; respectively). The inclusion of the non-criteria aPLs increased the accuracy of APS diagnosis from 65.7% to 87.4%.

Conclusion

Our data provide evidence that adding the non-criteria aPLs can improve the diagnostic accuracy in APS. APhL IgG, aPS/PT, and aPS IgG may be potential biomarkers to predict the risk of thrombosis in APS.

Comparison of non-criteria antiphospholipid syndrome with definite antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review

Objectives

Patients with laboratory or clinical manifestations suggestive of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) but not fulfilling the classification criteria constitute a clinical challenge. This study aims to compare non-criteria APS (NC-APS) with definite APS in terms of clinical manifestations, therapies, and outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review of observational studies comparing definite and NC-APS was performed searching four electronic databases. Data on clinical manifestations, therapies and clinical outcomes was extracted.

Results

Sixteen studies, assessing a total of 3,798 participants, were included. Seven out of 10 studies found no significant difference in the prevalence of arterial or venous thrombosis between definite and NC-APS, with two studies on seronegative APS also finding no difference in thrombosis recurrence. Seven out of 12 studies found no significant difference in the prevalence of obstetric manifestations between groups, with the remaining exhibiting conflicting results. In 9 studies comparing treatment frequency in obstetric patients, all but one described similar treatment frequency, with the percentage of NC-APS treated during pregnancy ranging from 26% to 100%. In 10 studies comparing pregnancy outcomes of NC-APS versus definite APS, 7 found similar successful pregnancies/live births. Additionally, 5 studies described improvement of live births in both groups with treatment, with three signalling aspirin monotherapy as efficacious as combination therapy in NC-APS.

Conclusion

This review hints at an absence of marked differences in most evaluated parameters between definite and NC-APS, emphasizing the value of a more active follow-up of these patients. The low-quality available evidence highlights the need for well-defined NC-APS populations in future studies.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020210674.

Seronegative autoimmune diseases: A challenging diagnosis

Autoimmune diseases (AID) are increasingly prevalent conditions which comprise more than 100 distinct clinical entities that are responsible for a great disease burden worldwide. The early recognition of these diseases is key for preventing their complications and for tailoring proper management. In most cases, autoantibodies, regardless of their potential pathogenetic role, can be detected in the serum of patients with AID, helping clinicians in making a definitive diagnosis and allowing screening strategies for early -and sometimes pre-clinical- diagnosis. Despite their undoubted crucial role, in a minority of cases, patients with AID may not show any autoantibody, a condition that is referred to as seronegative AID. Suboptimal accuracy of the available laboratory tests, antibody absorption, immunosuppressive therapy, immunodeficiencies, antigen exhaustion, and immunosenescence are the main possible determinants of seronegative AID. Indeed, in seronegative AID, the diagnosis is more challenging and must rely on clinical features and on other available tests, often including histopathological evaluation and radiological diagnostic tests. In this review, we critically dissect, in a narrative fashion, the possible causes of seronegativity, as well as the diagnostic and management implications, in several AID including autoimmune gastritis, celiac disease, autoimmune liver disease, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune encephalitis, myasthenia gravis, Sjögren's syndrome, antiphospholipid syndrome, and autoimmune thyroid diseases.