Damage measured by Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS) in antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients included in the APS ACTION registry.

OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to quantify damage burden measured by Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS) in aPL-positive patients with or without a history of thrombosis in an international cohort (the APS ACTION cohort). Secondly, we aimed to identify clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with damage in aPL-positive patients. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed the baseline damage in aPL-positive patients with or without APS classification. We excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases. We analysed the demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics based on two subgroups: (i) thrombotic APS patients with high vs low damage; and (ii) non-thrombotic aPL-positive patients with vs without damage. RESULTS: Of the 826 aPL-positive patients included in the registry as of April 2020, 586 with no other systemic autoimmune diseases were included in the analysis (412 thrombotic and 174 non-thrombotic). In the thrombotic group, hyperlipidaemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.82; 95% CI 1.05, 3.15; adjusted P = 0.032), obesity (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.23, 3.71; adjusted P = 0.007), aß2GPI high titres (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.36, 4.02; adjusted P = 0.002) and corticosteroid use (ever) (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.80, 7.75; adjusted P < 0.001) were independently associated with high damage at baseline. In the non-thrombotic group, hypertension (OR 4.55; 95% CI 1.82, 11.35; adjusted P = 0.001) and hyperlipidaemia (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.37, 13.65; adjusted P = 0.013) were independent predictors of damage at baseline; conversely, single aPL positivity was inversely correlated with damage (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.075, 0.77; adjusted P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: DIAPS indicates substantial damage in aPL-positive patients in the APS ACTION cohort. Selected traditional cardiovascular risk factors, steroids use and specific aPL profiles may help to identify patients more prone to present with a higher damage burden.

Therapy with direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of thromboembolic events in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterised by venous thrombosis (VT) or arterial thrombosis (AT) and/or pregnancy morbidity and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) hold several advantages to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for prevention of thrombosis and we wish to evaluate DOACs compared with VKAs in secondary prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with APS. METHODS: We conducted searches of the published literature using relevant data sources (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL), and of trial registers for unpublished data and ongoing trials. We included randomised trials examining individuals >18 years with APS classified according to the criteria valid when the trial was carried out. Randomised controlled trials had to examine any DOAC agent compared with any comparable drug. We tabulated all occurrences of events from all eligible randomised trials. Due to few events, ORs and 95% CIs were calculated using the Peto method. RESULTS: 5 randomised trials comprising 624 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria. The primary outcome measure was new thrombotic events, a composite endpoint of any VT or AT, during the VKA-controlled phase of treatment. According to the I2 inconsistency index, there was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the studies (I2=60%). Across trials, 29 and 10 thrombotic events were observed in 305 and 319 patients with APS treated with DOAC and VKA, respectively, corresponding to a combined Peto OR of 3.01 (95% CI 1.56 to 5.78, p=0.001). There was a significantly increased risk of AT while treated with DOACs compared with VKA (OR 5.5 (2.5, 12.1) p<0.0001), but no difference in the risk of VT (p=0.87). We found no significant difference in risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs were associated with a significant increase in the risk of a new thrombotic event, especially AT, favouring standard prophylaxis with warfarin. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126720.

Ocular retinal findings in asymptomatic patients with antiphospholipid syndrome secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus.

The objective is to perform a multimodal ophthalmological evaluation, including optical coherence angiography (OCTA), asymptomatic APS secondary to SLE (APS/SLE), and compare to SLE patients and control group (CG). We performed a complete structural/functional ophthalmological evaluation using OCTA/microperimetry exam in all participants. One hundred fifty eyes/75 asymptomatic subjects [APS/SLE (n = 25), SLE (n = 25), and CG (n = 25)] were included. Ophthalmologic abnormalities occurred in 9 (36%) APS/SLE, 11 (44%) SLE, and none of CG (p < 0.001). The most common retinal finding was Drusen-like deposits (DLDs) exclusively in APS/SLE and SLE (16% vs. 24%, p = 0.75) whereas severe changes occurred solely in APS/SLE [2 paracentral acute middle maculopathy (PAMM) and 1 homonymous quadrantanopsia]. A trend of higher frequency of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) triple positivity (100% vs. 16%, p = 0.05) and higher mean values of adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) (14 ± 0 vs. 9.69 ± 3.44, p = 0.09) was observed in APS/SLE with PAMM vs. those without this complication. We identified that ophthalmologic retinal abnormalities occurred in more than 1/4 of asymptomatic APS/SLE and SLE. DLDs are the most frequent with similar frequencies in both conditions whereas PAMM occurred exclusively in APS/SLE patients. The possible association of the latter condition with aPL triple positivity and high aGAPSS suggests these two conditions may underlie the retinal maculopathy. Our findings in asymptomatic patients reinforce the need for early surveillance in these patients. Key Points • Retinal abnormalities occur in more than 1/4 of asymptomatic APS/SLE and SLE patients. • The occurrence of PAMM is possibly associated with APS and DLDs with SLE. • Presence of aPL triple positivity and high aGAPSS seem to be risk factors for PAMM.

Ocular involvement in primary antiphospholipid syndrome: results of an extensive ophthalmological evaluation performed in the APS-Rio cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To study ophthalmological manifestations in a well-characterized primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS) cohort (APS-Rio) and compare them with a healthy control group. METHODS: We examined PAPS patients and controls with an extensive ophthalmological evaluation, which included anamnesis, visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy, and retinography of the anterior and posterior segments of the eye. PAPS group also underwent angiography exam and optical coherence tomography using spectral domain technology (SD-OCT). RESULTS: 98 PAPS patients and 102 controls were included. The most common symptom in PAPS was amaurosis fugax (34.7% vs. 6.9%; p = .001). In the multivariate analyses, Raynaud's phenomenon was associated with amaurosis fugax (OR 3.71, CI:1.33-10.32; p = .012), and livedo correlated with hemianopia (OR 6.96, CI:1.11-43.72, p = .038) and diplopia (OR 3.49, CI:1.02-11.53, p = .047). After ophthalmological evaluation, 84 PAPS patients had ocular involvement (1.0% glaucoma, 94.0% posterior findings, 62.7% anterior findings, and 56.6% both posterior and anterior findings). Vascular tortuosity was more frequent in the PAPS group (63.2% vs. 42.2%; p = .002), as well as peripheral tortuosity (29.6% vs. 7.8%; p < .001). After excluding patients with atherosclerotic risk factors, peripheral vascular tortuosity was still statistically associated with PAPS (35.0 vs. 7.8%, p < .001). Triple positivity was more frequent in PAPS patients with peripheral vascular tortuosity than in those without this ocular finding (34.5% vs. 15.9%, p = .041). CONCLUSION: Vasomotor phenomena are importantly related to ocular symptoms in PAPS. Vascular tortuosity was a frequent finding in PAPS patients. Peripheral vascular tortuosity was associated with triple positivity and might be a biomarker of ischemic microvascular retinopathy due to PAPS.

CoaguChek® XS versus standard laboratory prothrombin time for anticoagulant monitoring in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Prothrombin time, and its corresponding international normalized ratio (INR), is the laboratory test routinely performed to assess anticoagulation. Self-management of VKA therapy using point-of-care (POC) devices seems to be an attractive option. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a POC device (CoaguChek XS) in APS patients by comparing it with venous laboratory INR. Furthermore, we analyzed whether other clinical and laboratory features could interfere with the CoaguChek XS results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-center cross-sectional study with 94 APS patients from a tertiary rheumatology clinic performed from August 2014 to March 2015. The comparison between CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR results was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r) followed by the Bland-Altman test. A paired t-test was also applied. A difference of up to ±0.5 INR unit between the two systems was considered clinically acceptable. RESULTS: The mean CoaguChek-INR was 2.94 ± 1.41 and venous laboratory INR was 2.43±0.86, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.95. Categorizing INR values in ranges (INR <2, INR 2-3, INR 3-4, and INR >4), we found that the INR >4 group presented a lower correlation (r = 0.64) compared to the other ranges (p < 0.05). Although both methods were highly correlated, CoaguChek XS showed higher values than the venous laboratory INR, with an increased average of 0.42 ± 0.54. Therefore, we proposed a simple linear regression model to predict the venous laboratory INR values, using results obtained from CoaguChek XS. A difference ≤0.5 INR unit between the two systems was observed in 57.4% of patients, and the aPL profile did not influence the results. CONCLUSION: Although CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR demonstrated a good linear correlation in the group of INR ≤4, extra caution should be taken in APS patients, since a reasonable proportion of patients can present differences in INR results that are not acceptable. We do not recommend routine POC in APS patients.