Search

Antiphospholipid antibodies (APLA) are strongly associated with thrombosis seen in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. In COVID-19, thrombosis has been observed as one of the main comorbidities. In patients hospitalised for COVID-19, we want to check whether APLA positivity is associated with COVID-19-related thrombosis, inflammation, severity of disease, or long COVID-19. We enrolled 92 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between March and April 2020 who were tested for 18 different APLAs (IgG and IgM) with a single line-immunoassay test. A total of 30 healthy blood donors were used to set the cut-off for each APLA positivity. Of the 92 COVID-19 inpatients, 30 (32.61%; 95% CI [23.41–43.29]) tested positive for APLA, of whom 10 (33.3%; 95% CI [17.94–52.86]) had more than one APLA positivity. Anti-phosphatidylserine IgM positivity was described in 5.4% of inpatients (n = 5) and was associated with the occurrence of COVID-19-related thrombosis (p = 0.046). Anti-cardiolipin IgM positivity was the most prevalent among the inpatients (n = 12, 13.0%) and was associated with a recorded thrombosis in their clinical history (p = 0.044); however, its positivity was not associated with the occurrence of thrombosis during their hospitalisation for COVID-19. Anti-phosphatidylinositol IgM positivity, with a prevalence of 5.4% (n = 5), was associated with higher levels of interleukin (IL)-6 (p = 0.007) and ferritin (p = 0.034). Neither of these APLA positivities was a risk factor for COVID-19 severity or a predictive marker for long COVID-19. In conclusion, almost a third of COVID-19 inpatients tested positive for at least one APLA. Anti-phosphatidylserine positivity in IgM class was associated with thrombosis, and anti-phosphatidylinositol positivity in IgM class was associated with inflammation, as noticed by elevated levels of IL-6. Thus, testing for non-criteria APLA to assess the risk of clinical complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients might be beneficial. However, they were not related to disease severity or long COVID-19.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune condition characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) associated with vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy complications. In a cohort of 74 yet diagnosed APS individuals fulfilling Sydney laboratory criteria (twice positive for lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin, aCL, and/or anti-β2glycoprotein I, aβ2GPI), 33 out of 74 were obstetric APS (OAPS) and 41 thrombotic APS (TAPS) patients. 39% of TAPS patients were women. Although aPL detection was persistent, we observed an oscillatory aPL positivity in 56.7% and a transient seroconversion in 32.4% of APS patients at enrolment. Thus, we tested their sera in a line immunoassay that simultaneously detected IgG or IgM for criteria (aCL and aβ2GPI) and non-criteria (anti-phosphatidylserine, aPS; anti-phosphatidic acid, aPA; anti-phosphatidylinositol, aPI; anti-annexin 5, aA5; anti-prothrombin, aPT; anti-phosphatidylethanolamine; anti-phosphatidylglycerol, and anti-phosphatidylcholine) aPL. OAPS and TAPS patients displayed different but overlapping clusters based on their aPL reactivities. Specifically, while OAPS patients showed higher aPA, aPS, aA5, aβ2GPI and aPT IgM levels than TAPS patients, the latter displayed higher reactivity in aCL, aPI and aA5 IgG. Eventually, with a cut-off of the 99th percentile established from a population of 79 healthy donors, TAPS patients significantly tested more positive for aCL and aA5 IgG than OAPS patients, who tested more positive for aPA, aPS and aβ2GPI IgM. Transiently seronegative APS patients showed non-criteria aPL positivity twice in sera obtained 3 months apart. Overall, our data show that APS patients presented clusters of aPL that define different profiles between OAPS and TAPS, and persistent non-criteria aPL positivity was observed in those who are transiently seronegative.

In Long COVID, dysfunction in the pituitary–adrenal axis and alterations in immune cells and inflammatory status are warned against. We performed a prospective study in a cohort of 42 patients who suffered COVID-19 at least 6 months before attending the Long COVID unit at Althaia Hospital. Based on Post-COVID Functional Status, 29 patients were diagnosed with Long COVID, while 13 were deemed as recovered. The hormones of the pituitary–adrenal axis, adrenocorticotropin stimulation test, and immune cell profiles and inflammatory markers were examined. Patients with Long COVID had significantly lower EuroQol and higher mMRC scores compared to the recovered individuals. Their symptoms included fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, persistent coughing, a persistent sore throat, dyspnoea, a lack of concentration, and anxiety. We observed the physiological levels of cortisol and adrenocorticotropin in individuals with or without Long COVID. The results of the adrenocorticotropin stimulation test were similar between both groups. The absolute number of neutrophils was lower in the Long COVID patients compared to recovered individuals (p < 0.05). The total count of B lymphocytes remained consistent, but Long COVID patients had a higher percentage of mature B cells compared to recovered participants (p < 0.05) and exhibited a higher percentage of circulating resident memory CD8+ T cells (p < 0.05) and Treg-expressing exonucleases (p < 0.05). Our findings did not identify adrenal dysfunction related to Long COVID, nor an association between adrenal function and clinical symptoms. The data indicated a dysregulation in certain immune cells, pointing to immune activation. No overt hyperinflammation was observed in the Long COVID group.

(1) Background: Myositis specific antibodies (MSA) represent important diagnostic and stratification tools in idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) patients. Here we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of MSA profiled by a novel particle based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) in IIM and subsets thereof. (2) Methods: 264 IIM patients and 200 controls were tested for MSA using PMAT (Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Diagnostic performance was analyzed and composite scores were generated. (3) Results: The sensitivity/specificity of the individual MSA were: 19.7%/100% (Jo-1), 7.2%/100.0% (Mi-2), 3.0%/99.0% (NXP2), 3.8%/100.0% (SAE), 2.7%/100.0% (PL-7), 1.9%/99.5 (PL-12), 1.1%/100.0% (EJ), 15.5%/99.5% (TIF1γ), 8.3%/98.5% (MDA5), 6.1%/99.0% (HMGCR) and 1.9%/98.5% (SRP). Of all IIM patients, 180/264 tested positive for at least one of the MSAs. In the individual control group, 12/200 (6.0%) tested positive for at least one MSA, most of which had levels close to the cut-off (except one SRP and one PL-12). Only 6/264 (2.3%) IIM patients were positive for more than one antibody (MDA5/HMGCR, EJ/PL-7, 2 x MDA5/TIF1γ, EJ/SAE, SAE/TIF1γ). The overall sensitivity was 68.2% paired with a specificity of 94.0%, leading to an odds ratio of 33.8. The composite scores showed good discrimination between subgroups (e.g., anti-synthetase syndrome). (4) Conclusion: MSA, especially when combined in composite scores (here measured by PMAT), provide value in stratification of patients with IIM.