4.3 Article

IgA antiphospholipid antibodies are an independent risk factor for thromboses

Journal

LUPUS
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 996-1003

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203308093460

Keywords

antiphospholipid antibodies; antiphospholipid syndrome; IgA; lupus anticoagulant

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Antiphospholipid antibodies (lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies, mostly IgG isotype) are strong risk factors for thrombosis. Because a paucity of information on IgA isotype exists in the literature, we retrospectively evaluated the thrombotic significance of IgA antiphospholipid antibodies. We included 472 patients with clinical information on thrombotic events and complete laboratory work-up for antiphospholipid antibodies syndrome. Odds ratios (OR) of various antiphospholipid antibodies for thrombosis were calculated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Lupus anticoagulant alone was detected in 57 (12%) patients, ELISA-based antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) against cardiolipin, phosphatidylserine or beta(2)-glycoprotein-I alone were detected in 131 (28%) patients, whereas 80 (17%) patients had both. Antibody isotype distribution was IgG 32%, IgM 60%, and IgA 56%. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant risk of thrombosis in patients with elevated titres of IgA of any ELISA-based antiphospholipid antibodies (OR 1.77). Stepwise logistic regression (multivariate) analysis identified elevated titres of any ELISA-based IgA anti phospholipid antibodies as an independent risk factor for thrombosis (OR 1.6) in the entire cohort, and in the subgroup of patients without concurrent presence of lupus anticoagulant (OR 1.8). IgA antiphospholipid antibodies appear to be a significant independent risk factor for thrombosis, thereby meriting evaluation in patients with unexpected thrombosis. Lupus (2008) 17, 996-1003.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available