Antibodies to phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex and the antiphospholipid syndrome

Antibodies to prothrombin can be detected by ELISA using prothrombin coated onto irradiated plates (aPT) or the phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex as antigen (aPS/PT) and they have been both related with the clinical manifestation of APS. Current evidence supports the concept that they belong to distinct populations of autoantibodies. Nevertheless, they can both be detected simultaneously in one patient. This mini-review will focus on data available on aPS/PT antibodies and their clinical utility in the diagnosis of APS. </jats:p

Thrombotic risk assessment in APS: The Global APS Score (GAPSS)

Recently, we developed a risk score for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) (Global APS Score or GAPSS). This score derived from the combination of independent risk factors for thrombosis and pregnancy loss, taking into account the antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) profile (criteria and non-criteria aPL), the conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and the autoimmune antibodies profile. We demonstrate that risk profile in APS can be successfully assessed, suggesting that GAPSS can be a potential quantitative marker of APS-related clinical manifestations

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus (RAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban is established for the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, but whether it is useful in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome is uncertain. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial, done in two UK hospitals, included patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who were taking warfarin for previous venous thromboembolism, with a target international normalised ratio of 2·5. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue with warfarin or receive 20 mg oral rivaroxaban daily. Randomisation was done centrally, stratified by centre and patient type (with vs without systemic lupus erythematosus). The primary outcome was percentage change in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) from randomisation to day 42, with non-inferiority set at less than 20% difference from warfarin in mean percentage change. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. Other thrombin generation parameters, thrombosis, and bleeding were also assessed. Treatment effect was measured as the ratio of rivaroxaban to warfarin for thrombin generation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68222801. FINDINGS: Of 116 patients randomised between June 5, 2013, and Nov 11, 2014, 54 who received rivaroxaban and 56 who received warfarin were assessed. At day 42, ETP was higher in the rivaroxaban than in the warfarin group (geometric mean 1086 nmol/L per min, 95% CI 957-1233 vs 548, 484-621, treatment effect 2·0, 95% CI 1·7-2·4, p<0·0001). Peak thrombin generation was lower in the rivaroxaban group (56 nmol/L, 95% CI 47-66 vs 86 nmol/L, 72-102, treatment effect 0·6, 95% CI 0·5-0·8, p=0·0006). No thrombosis or major bleeding were seen. Serious adverse events occurred in four patients in each group. INTERPRETATION: ETP for rivaroxaban did not reach the non-inferiority threshold, but as there was no increase in thrombotic risk compared with standard-intensity warfarin, this drug could be an effective and safe alternative in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and previous venous thromboembolism

Significance of antiprothrombin antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical evaluation of the antiprothrombin assay and the antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin assay, and comparison with other antiphospholipid antibody assays

Antibodies against prothrombin are detected by enzyme immunoassays (EIA) in sera of patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). However, there are two methods for antiprothrombin EIA; one that uses high binding plates (aPT-A), and another that utilizes phosphatidylserine bound plates (aPS/PT). We aimed to evaluate and compare aPT-A and aPS/PT in a clinical setting. We performed EIA for anti-PT, anti-PS/PT, IgG, and IgM anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and IgG β2-glycoprotein I-dependent aCL (aβ2GPI/CL) with serum samples from 139 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients (16 with history of at least one thrombotic episode) and 148 controls. We observed that: (1) although titers of anti-PT and anti-PS/PT were significantly related with each other (P < 0.0001, ρ = 0.548), titer of anti-PT and anti-PS/PT differed greatly in some samples; (2) odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for each assay was 3.556 (1.221–10.355) for aPT-A, 4.591 (1.555–15.560) for aPS/PT, 4.204 (1.250–14.148) for IgG aCL, 1.809 (0.354–9.232) for IgM aCL, and 7.246 (2.391–21.966) for aβ2GPI/CL. We conclude that, while all EIA performed in this study except IgM aCL are of potential value in assessing the risk of thrombosis, aPS/PT and aβ2GPI/CL seemed to be highly valuable in clinical practice, and that autoantibodies detected by anti-PT and anti-PS/PT are not completely identical

Cluster analysis for the identification of clinical phenotypes among antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients from the APS ACTION Registry

Objective: This study aimed to use cluster analysis (CA) to identify different clinical phenotypes among antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL)-positive patients. Methods: The Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Registry includes persistently positive aPL of any isotype based on the Sydney antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria. We performed CA on the baseline characteristics collected retrospectively at the time of the registry entry of the first 500 patients included in the registry. A total of 30 clinical data points were included in the primary CA to cover the broad spectrum of aPL-positive patients. Results: A total of 497 patients from international centres were analysed, resulting in three main exclusive clusters: (a) female patients with no other autoimmune diseases but with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and triple-aPL positivity; (b) female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, VTE, aPL nephropathy, thrombocytopaenia, haemolytic anaemia and a positive lupus anticoagulant test; and (c) older men with arterial thrombosis, heart valve disease, livedo, skin ulcers, neurological manifestations and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Conclusions: Based on our hierarchical cluster analysis, we identified different clinical phenotypes of aPL-positive patients discriminated by aPL profile, lupus or CVD risk factors. Our results, while supporting the heterogeneity of aPL-positive patients, also provide a foundation to understand disease mechanisms, create new approaches for APS classification and ultimately develop new management approaches