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).

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.

Background: Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms. Aim: To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds. Material and methods: aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated. Results: Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM.

No abstract

The chromogenic anti-factor Xa activity assay (anti-Xa) is the most widely used coagulation test for monitoring low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) due to its wide availability. Therefore, this anti-Xa assay is considered as the gold standard for guiding LMWH and fondaparinux therapy. 1 Because of their high bioavailability after subcutaneous injection and predictable dose-response relationship, routine laboratory monitoring of the anticoagulant effect is usually not necessary. However, in specific patient populations (such as children, pregnant women, obese patients, and patients with renal impairment), monitoring of the anti-Xa activity to guide LMWH therapy is recommended. [1][2][3][4] It is standard practice to monitor unfractionated heparin (UFH) in all patients, traditionally by the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). 4 However, when aPTT is influenced by factors unrelated to heparin therapy, such as lupus anticoagulant,

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 < 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.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

No abstract