TY - JOUR
T1 - An update on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome
T2 - guidance from the ISTH-SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies
AU - Devreese, Katrien M J
AU - Bertolaccini, Maria Laura
AU - Branch, D Ware
AU - de Laat, Bas
AU - Erkan, Doruk
AU - Favaloro, Emmanuel J
AU - Pengo, Vittorio
AU - Ortel, Thomas L
AU - Wahl, Denis
AU - Cohen, Hannah
N1 - Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024/11/5
Y1 - 2024/11/5
N2 - Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis is dependent on the accurate detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) remain the cornerstone of the laboratory part of APS diagnosis. In the 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) APS classification criteria, the type of laboratory parameters remain essentially unchanged compared with the updated Sapporo classification criteria, and aCL and aβ2GPI measurement are still restricted to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with moderate and high titer aPL thresholds defined as 40 and 80 Units, respectively, and a cutoff calculated by the 99th percentile has been abandoned. We must differentiate between classification criteria and assessment of aPLs in clinical care. Classification criteria are strict and meant for participant inclusion in studies and trials to study homogeneous populations of patients. In contrast, laboratory detection for APS diagnosis in daily practice is broader, meant to diagnose each APS patient to optimize their management. Nowadays, there is increasing use of measurement of aPLs by methods other than ELISAs, the semiquantitative reporting of titers is a matter of debate, as well as the role of the isotypes immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA, and the role of other aPLs, such as antiphosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) antibodies. Patients diagnosed with the disease may or may not fulfill the classification criteria, and inappropriate use of classification criteria may lead to mis(under)diagnosis. The aim of this guidance, based on literature and expert opinion, is to provide guidance recommendations for laboratory workers and clinicians on routine diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected APS.
AB - Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis is dependent on the accurate detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) remain the cornerstone of the laboratory part of APS diagnosis. In the 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) APS classification criteria, the type of laboratory parameters remain essentially unchanged compared with the updated Sapporo classification criteria, and aCL and aβ2GPI measurement are still restricted to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with moderate and high titer aPL thresholds defined as 40 and 80 Units, respectively, and a cutoff calculated by the 99th percentile has been abandoned. We must differentiate between classification criteria and assessment of aPLs in clinical care. Classification criteria are strict and meant for participant inclusion in studies and trials to study homogeneous populations of patients. In contrast, laboratory detection for APS diagnosis in daily practice is broader, meant to diagnose each APS patient to optimize their management. Nowadays, there is increasing use of measurement of aPLs by methods other than ELISAs, the semiquantitative reporting of titers is a matter of debate, as well as the role of the isotypes immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA, and the role of other aPLs, such as antiphosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) antibodies. Patients diagnosed with the disease may or may not fulfill the classification criteria, and inappropriate use of classification criteria may lead to mis(under)diagnosis. The aim of this guidance, based on literature and expert opinion, is to provide guidance recommendations for laboratory workers and clinicians on routine diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected APS.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85210130796&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85210130796&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtha.2024.10.022
DO - 10.1016/j.jtha.2024.10.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 39510414
SN - 1538-7933
JO - Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
JF - Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
ER -