Triple positive profile in antiphospholipid syndrome: prognosis, relapse and management from a retrospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by the association of thromboembolic and/or obstetrical clinical manifestations and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of the triple-positive profile in a cohort of 204 APS patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study, including patients with primary or secondary APS, meeting the Sydney criteria with at least one thrombotic and/or obstetrical complication. Clinical characteristics and the risk of relapse (defined by the occurrence of a new thrombotic event and/or a new adverse obstetrical event) between triple-positive and non-triple-positive APS patients were compared. RESULTS: 204 patients were included in our study, 68 were triple-positive and 136 were single or double positive. 122 patients (59.8%) had primary APS. 67 patients (32.8%) had obstetrical APS, with a higher rate among triple-positive patients (45.6% vs 26.5%, p=0.010), and 170 patients (83.3%) had thrombotic APS, without difference between triple-positive and others. Thrombotic events were more often venous (56.4%) than arterial (37.7%). Triple-positive patients had more placental complications than others (17.6% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) and more non-criteria events (48.5% vs 25.7%, p=0.002). Among non-criteria events, there was a higher frequency of Sneddon syndrome in triple-positive patients (7.4% vs 0.7%, p=0.028). The relapse rate was higher in triple-positive patients than in others (63.2% vs 39,7%, p=0002). In multivariate analysis, the triple-positive profile was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.55; p=0.031). CONCLUSION: The triple-positivity is associated with a higher risk of relapse and obstetrical complications.

Obstetrical outcome and treatments in seronegative primary APS: data from European retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, pregnancies and treatments during pregnancies of seronegative and seropositive antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), to analyse factors associated with obstetrical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.