Search

Background: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is classified by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and thrombotic and/or adverse obstetric outcomes. The diagnosis and risk assessment of APS is challenging. This systematic review investigated if the thrombin generation (TG) assay could be helpful for APS diagnosis and risk assessment. Methods: A systemic review was performed by searching two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) until March 31, 2022, using a search strategy with two concepts: APS and TG, and related keywords. Two reviewers independently screened the articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were performed independently. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines were followed for data synthesis reporting. Results: Fourteen studies with 677 APS and 1,349 control subjects were included with variable quality according to the NOS. Twelve studies measured TG via the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) method using a fluorogenic substrate, whereas two used a chromogenic substrate-based TG assay. One study compared the CAT assay to the fully-automated ST Genesia® (Stago, France). Two studies initiated TG using platelet-rich plasma, whereas the rest of the studies used platelet-poor plasma. Resistance to activated protein C (aPC) was examined in ten studies. They reported a significant increase in aPC-resistance in APS patients compared to healthy controls, aPL-carriers, and thrombotic controls. Based on two studies, the prevalence of aPC-resistance was higher in APS patients compared to healthy controls and thrombotic controls with odds ratios of 5.9 and 6.8–12.8, respectively (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant difference in aPC-resistance was found between APS patients and autoimmune disease controls. Furthermore, 7/14 studies reported TG-parameters including peak height, endogenous thrombin potential, lag time, and time to peak, but these outcomes were highly variable between studies. Furthermore, TG methodology between studies differed greatly, impacting the comparability of the studies. Conclusion: aPC-resistance measured with TG was increased in APS patients compared to healthy and thrombotic controls, but the diagnostic and prognostic value is unclear compared to current diagnostic strategies. Studies of other TG-parameters were heterogeneous and more research is needed to identify their potential added value in APS diagnosis. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022308363.

BackgroundThe antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is classified by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and thrombotic and/or adverse obstetric outcomes. The diagnosis and risk assessment of APS is challenging. This systematic review investigated if the thrombin generation (TG) assay could be helpful for APS diagnosis and risk assessment.MethodsA systemic review was performed by searching two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) until March 31, 2022, using a search strategy with two concepts: APS and TG, and related keywords. Two reviewers independently screened the articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were performed independently. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines were followed for data synthesis reporting.ResultsFourteen studies with 677 APS and 1,349 control subjects were included with variable quality according to the NOS. Twelve studies measured TG via the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) method using a fluorogenic substrate, whereas two used a chromogenic substrate-based TG assay. One study compared the CAT assay to the fully-automated ST Genesia® (Stago, France). Two studies initiated TG using platelet-rich plasma, whereas the rest of the studies used platelet-poor plasma. Resistance to activated protein C (aPC) was examined in ten studies. They reported a significant increase in aPC-resistance in APS patients compared to healthy controls, aPL-carriers, and thrombotic controls. Based on two studies, the prevalence of aPC-resistance was higher in APS patients compared to healthy controls and thrombotic controls with odds ratios of 5.9 and 6.8–12.8, respectively (p ConclusionaPC-resistance measured with TG was increased in APS patients compared to healthy and thrombotic controls, but the diagnostic and prognostic value is unclear compared to current diagnostic strategies. Studies of other TG-parameters were heterogeneous and more research is needed to identify their potential added value in APS diagnosis.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022308363

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires persistent presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, or anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM antibodies. Other antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) such as antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) are promising in assessment of thrombotic APS (TAPS).AIM: To evaluate the added value of aPS/PT IgG and IgM in TAPS.MATERIAL AND METHODS: aPS/PT IgG/IgM, aCL IgG/IgM, aβ2GPI IgG/IgM, and LAC were determined in 757 patients (TAPS and controls). aPS/PT cut-off values were calculated, aPS/PT titers and positivity were compared between TAPS and controls, type of thrombosis, and antibody profiles. Likelihood ratios (LR), odds ratios (OR) and aPL-score were determined.RESULTS: aPS/PT IgG and IgM were associated with TAPS and triple positivity. In-house calculated cut-offs were higher for IgM (43 units), compared to manufacturer's cut-off (30 units). Thresholds of 90 (IgG)/200 (IgM) units were determined as high-titer cut-off. Higher aPS/PT titers were observed in triple positive patients and showed higher LR and OR for TAPS. aPS/PT was independently associated with TAPS when adjusted for aCL/aβ2GPI, but not when adjusted for LAC. In isolated LAC positive patients, aPS/PT was positive in 27.1% TAPS patients and in 77.3% patients with autoimmune disease. Diagnostic value of aPL-score did not differ with and without including aPS/PT.CONCLUSION: aPS/PT positivity, especially with high antibody titer, is associated with TAPS diagnosis. Analysis on top of current laboratory criteria is not essential in TAPS diagnosis, but aPS/PT could be useful in patients with thrombosis and a double positive aPL profile (aCL+/aβ2GPI+).

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

The diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) relies on the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG or IgM are included as laboratory criteria, if persistently present. LAC measurement remains a complicated procedure with many pitfalls and interfered by anticoagulant therapy. Solid-phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI show interassay differences. These methodological issues make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. In the interpretation of aPL. results, antibody profiles help in identifying patients at risk. Other aPL, such as antibodies against the domain I of beta2-glycoprotein (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies have been studied in the last years and may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients. Because of the methodological shortcomings of immunological and clotting assays, these non-criteria aPL may be useful in patients with incomplete antibody profiles to confirm or exclude the increased risk profile. This manuscript will focus on the laboratory aspects, the clinical relevance of assays and interpretation of aPL results in the diagnosis of APS., Highlights • The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) define the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). • Laboratory criteria are lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL), and antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. • Lupus anticoagulant measurement, as well as solid phase assays for aCL and aβ2GPI, show methodological challenges. • Antibodies against domain I of β2GPI (aDI) and antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies are on-criteria aPL.. • aDI and aPS/PT may be useful in risk stratification of APS patients.

This guidance focuses on methodological aspects of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, as well as interpretation of results for clinicians. The main changes in how to test for LA compared with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee 2009 guidelines, in the preanalytical phase are more detailed recommendations on how to handle testing in anticoagulated patients, and the timing of testing. Also, routine coagulation tests are advised to obtain more information on the coagulation background of the patient, and when necessary, anti-Xa activity measurement for heparins or specific assays for direct oral anticoagulants should be performed. The three-step procedure with two test systems (diluted Russell's viper venom time and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) is essentially not changed. Silica remains the preferable activator in the aPTT assays, but ellagic acid is not excluded. We advise simultaneous performance of the mixing and confirmatory step, in each sample with a prolonged screening test. The confirmatory step can also be performed on a mixture of patient plasma and normal pooled plasma. Cutoff values should be established in-house on at least 120 normals, with transference of the manufacturer's cutoffs as an alternative. Reporting of results has not been changed, although more attention is focused on what clinicians should know. Patient selection for LA testing has been expanded.

The antiphospholipid syndrome is defined by the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies in plasma of patients with a history of thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. From the definition in 1985 onwards, confusion has arisen concerning who has the syndrome and who has not. Although the clinical criteria are well defined, there is ongoing discussion regarding serologic criteria. Lack of standardization of the assays that define the serologic criteria, notably phospholipids-dependent coagulation assays, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for anticardiolipin and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I, have led to heated arguments regarding which population(s) of antibodies should be measured to detect a patient at risk for (recurrent) thrombosis or pregnancy complications. Everybody agrees on the need to better standardize the assays, but different views are held on how this should be achieved, and commercial interests have hampered consensus on which assays should be applied, how they should be performed, and the cutoff values that discriminate between pathologic and nonpathologic results. New prospective cohort studies to reevaluate the clinical significance of the available assays are essential, but the lack of sufficient patient numbers visiting single hospital facilities frustrates progress. This review discusses shortcomings of the current serologic assays, provides strategies to solve these shortcomings, and discusses new developments/assays to improve the specificity of such assays for thrombosis and pregnancy complications.