Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Lobsters Only? Or Should We Also Look for Selected Red Herrings?

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.

Management of patients with antiphospholipid antibodies: what to do in laboratory scenarios that do not fit the guidelines

Introduction: Some patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) have not been included in randomized clinical trials or observational registries and, therefore, information on their risk of obstetric or thrombotic recurrence and optimal treatment is scarce.Areas covered: In the present review, the existing evidence regarding the management of two laboratory scenarios not covered by the guidelines is presented: (1) patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) clinical manifestations and aPL positivity not fulfilling APS laboratory criteria, and (2) the possibility of discontinuing anticoagulation in APS patients whose aPL become persistently negative.Expert opinion: Growing evidence suggests a role for low titers and 'non-criteria' aPL, especially in obstetric APS. Treatment is not formally recommended but might be considered according to the individual's risk profile. Regarding the question of whether or not to discontinue anticoagulants after the 'spontaneous' disappearance of aPL, there is no definite answer. Retrospective studies seem to suggest that withdrawal of anticoagulation could be safe in certain patients with APS, especially in those with a first provoked venous thrombosis and whose aPL became persistently negative during follow-up. Still, before the withdrawal can be recommended in routine clinical practice, multicenter and prospective studies are required to validate this hypothesis.

"Non-criteria" antiphospholipid syndrome: A nomenclature proposal

The classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) generate discussion, with a growing impression that certain patients not fulfilling these criteria might be inadequately excluded from the classification. Nonetheless, these "non-criteria" patients are heterogeneously defined across different publications. We reviewed the "non-criteria" APS subgroups depicted in the literature and attempted to organize these subsets in a nomenclature proposal that could be used for research purposes. We established four potential patient profiles, grouped under the broad term "non-criteria APS": (A) "Seronegative APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, plus "non-criteria" manifestations, with persistently negative antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL); (B) "Clinical non-criteria APS": patients with "non-criteria" manifestations, plus aPL positivity fulfilling the classification criteria; (C) "Incomplete laboratory APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, plus positive aPL, but not fulfilling the classification criteria (low titer aPL); and (D) "Laboratory non-criteria APS": patients fulfilling clinical criteria, with negative or low titer criteria aPL, plus positive "non-criteria" aPL. This categorization could allow for a more homogeneous research approach to APS, enabling more sustained and universal conclusions.

Comparative study between obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome and obstetric morbidity related with antiphospholipid antibodies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical, laboratory, treatment and live birth rate data between women with aPL-related obstetric complications (OMAPS) not fulfilling the Sydney criteria and women fulfilling them (OAPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective and prospective multicentre study. Data comparison between groups from The European Registry on Antiphospholipid Syndrome included within the framework of the European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibody projects.

RESULTS

338 women were analysed: 247 fulfilled the Sydney criteria (OAPS group) and 91 did not (OMAPS group). In the OMAPS group, 24/91 (26.37%) fulfilled laboratory Sydney criteria (subgroup A) and 67/91 (74.63%) had a low titre and/or non-persistent aPL-positivity (subgroup B). Overall, aPL laboratory categories in OAPS vs. OMAPS showed significant differences: 34% vs. 11% (p<0.0001) for category I, 66% vs. 89% (p<0.0001) for category II. No differences were observed when current obstetric complications were compared (p=0.481). 86.20% of OAPS women were treated vs. 75.82% of OMAPS (p=0.0224), particularly regarding the LDA+LMWH schedule (p=0.006). No differences between groups were observed in live births, gestational, puerperal arterial and/or venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences were found among aPL categories between groups. Treatment rates were higher in OAPS. Both OAPS and OMAPS groups had similarly good foetal-maternal outcomes when treated. The proposal to modify OAPS classification criteria, mostly laboratory requirements, is reinforced by these results.

Prevention & treatment of obstetrical complications in APS: Is hydroxychloroquine the Holy Grail we are looking for?

Pregnancy morbidity is part of the clinical spectrum of the anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS), with an important social and economical cost. Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents are effective in preventing the clinical manifestations in the majority of the patients. However, a consistent proportion of the pregnant women present recurrences in spite of the standard therapy. Observational studies and anecdotal reports raised the issue of additional therapeutic strategies in these refractory cases. Among these, anti-malarials (AMs) and in particular hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are becoming more and more popular in APS as well as in other systemic autoimmune rheumatic conditions. AMs display a pleiotropic activity spanning from immunomodulation effect to anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic activities, all of which potentially useful in APS. The well-known safety of HCQ in pregnancy encouraged its use in pregnant women with autoimmune rheumatic disorders including APS and observational reports suggested a protective effect on obstetrical recurrences. Since thrombosis does not seem to be the main pathogenic mechanism in obstetric APS, effectiveness of the treatment with HCQ should be related to other pharmacological effects rather than to the anti-platelet or anti-thrombotic activity of the molecule. Experimental models showed that HCQ may restore some defective biological functions induced by anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL) on trophoblasts and a recent study reported a protective effect on in vivo aPL-mediated placental and foetal neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Although the rational behind the use of HCQ in obstetric APS is sound, the evidence from the real life is not conclusive and a critical appraisal through clinical trials is mandatory.