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.

Impact of Distinct Therapies on Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To date, the only study that has assessed the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 mRNA) vaccine in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) observed a moderate response, but the sample size precluded an accurate analysis of the effect of individual drugs. Therefore, we evaluated the immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac-CoronaVac) and the influence of different medications in SLE. Safety was also assessed. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled study of 232 SARS-CoV-2-naive SLE patients and 58 SARS-CoV-2-naive controls who were vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac-CoronaVac with a 28-day interval (day 0/day 28 [D0/D28]). Immunogenicity analysis at D0/D28 and D69 included anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG seroconversion (SC) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity. The influence of individual drugs on immune response and safety was assessed. RESULTS: Patients and controls were well balanced for age (P = 0.771). At D69, SLE patients showed a moderate SC (70.2% versus 98.1%; P < 0.001) and moderate frequency of NAb positivity (61.5% versus 84.6%; P = 0.002), although both frequencies were lower than in controls. Factors associated with lower SC in univariate analysis at D69 were prednisone use (odds ratio [OR] 0.215 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.108-0.427], P < 0.001) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use (OR 0.201 [95% CI 0.107-0.378], P < 0.001), whereas hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use led to a 2.5 increase in SC (P = 0.011). SLE patients who were receiving HCQ monotherapy had similar SC to controls at D69 (100% versus 98.1%; P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, prednisone and MMF use were independently associated with lower SC (P < 0.001) and NAb positivity (P < 0.001). Safety analysis revealed no moderate/severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: Sinovac-CoronaVac has a moderate immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2-naive SLE patients with an excellent safety profile. We further demonstrate that HCQ may improve SC, whereas prednisone and MMF had a major deleterious effect in vaccine response, reinforcing the need to investigate the role of temporary MMF withdrawal or a vaccine-booster dose (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04754698).