Search

To compare characteristics, pregnancies and treatments during pregnancies of seronegative and seropositive antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), to analyse factors associated with obstetrical outcome. Inclusion criteria were: (1) thrombotic and/or obstetrical APS (Sydney criteria); (2) absence of conventional antiphospholipid antibodies (APL); (3) at least one persistent non-conventional APL among IgA anticardiolipin antibodies, IgA anti-B2GPI, anti-vimentin G/M, anti-annexin V G/M, anti-phosphatidylethanolamine G/M and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin G/M antibodies. The exclusion criteria were: (1) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or SLE-like disease; and (2) other connective tissue disease. A total of 187 women (mean 33±5 years) with seronegative APS were included from 14 centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Slovenia and France and compared with 285 patients with seropositive APS. Seronegative APS has more obstetrical rather than thrombotic phenotypes, with only 6% of venous thrombosis in comparison to seropositive APS. Cumulative incidence of adverse obstetrical events was similar in seronegative and seropositive APS patients, although higher rates of intrauterine deaths (15% vs 5%; p=0.03), of preeclampsia (7% vs 16%, p=0.048) and lower live birth term (36±3 vs 38±3 weeks of gestation; p=0.04) were noted in seropositive APS. The cumulative incidence of adverse obstetrical events was significantly improved in treated versus untreated seronegative APS (log rank<0.05), whereas there was no difference between patients who received aspirin or aspirin-low-molecular weighted heparin combination. Several non-criteria APL can be detected in patients with clinical APS features without any conventional APL, with various rates. The detection of non-criteria APL and thus the diagnosis of seronegative APS could discuss the therapeutic management similar to seropositive APS, but well-designed controlled studies are necessary

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical features, laboratory data and fetal-maternal outcomes between 1000 women with obstetric APS (OAPS) and 640 with aPL-related obstetric complications not fulfilling Sydney criteria (non-criteria OAPS, NC-OAPS). METHODS: This was a retrospective and prospective multicentre study from the European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 1650 women with 5251 episodes, 3601 of which were historical and 1650 latest episodes, were included. Altogether, 1000 cases (OAPS group) fulfilled the Sydney classification criteria and 650 (NC-OAPS group) did not. Ten NC-OAPS cases were excluded for presenting thrombosis during follow-up. All cases were classified as category I (triple positivity or double positivity for aPL) or category II (simple positivity). Overall, aPL laboratory categories showed significant differences: 29.20% in OAPS vs 17.96% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category I, and 70.8% in OAPS vs 82% in NC-OAPS (P < 0.0001) for category II. Significant differences were observed when current obstetric complications were compared (P < 0.001). However, major differences between groups were not observed in treatment rates, livebirths and thrombotic complications. In the NC-OAPS group, 176/640 (27.5%) did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup A), 175/640 (27.34%) had a low titre and/or non-persistent aPL positivity but did meet the clinical criteria (subgroup B) and 289/640 (45.15%) had a high aPL titre but did not fulfil Sydney clinical criteria (subgroup C). CONCLUSION: Significant clinical and laboratory differences were found between groups. Fetal-maternal outcomes were similar in both groups when treated. These results suggest that we could improve our clinical practice with better understanding of NC-OAPS patients.

Aim: To analyse the prevalence and effects of inherited thrombophilic disorders (ITD) on maternal–foetal outcomes in cases of antiphospholipid antibody related to obstetric complications. Methods: Women with obstetric complaints who tested positive for aPL and with inherited thrombophilia were prospectively and retrospectively included. Results: ITD data were available in 208 of 338: 147 had obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS) and 61 aPL-related obstetric morbidity (OMAPS). 24.1% had ITD. Laboratory categories I and IIa were more related to OAPS-ITD and IIb and IIc to OMAPS-ITD. No significant differences in obstetric complaints were observed. Regarding ITD carriers, treatment rates were higher in OAPS than in OMAPS for LMWH and LDA plus LMWH (P=.002). Conclusion: Cases with aPL-related OAPS/OMAPS showed no differences in maternal–foetal outcomes regardless of the presence of one ITD. Maternal thrombotic risk was low, with ITD-positive cases included. Registry data concur with Sydney criteria, whereby aPL-ITD-positive patients are classified as having antiphospholipid syndrome.