4.7 Article

Risk factors for pregnancy failure in patients with anti-phospholipid syndrome treated with conventional therapies: a multicentre, case-control study

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 9, Pages 1684-1689

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker139

Keywords

Anti-phospholipid antibodies; Anti-phospholipid syndrome; Pregnancy; Risk factors; Heparin; Aspirin

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To identify the risk factors associated with pregnancy failure in patients with APS treated with conventional therapy. Methods. A multicentre, case-control study was conducted to compare APS patients with successful and unsuccessful pregnancy outcomes. We retrospectively considered 410 pregnancies of women diagnosed with primary APS. The study focused on 57 unsuccessful pregnancies (considered the study population) and 57 successful pregnancies (considered the control population) matched for age and therapy. All the patients had been treated with conventional protocol treatments including low-dose aspirin and/or heparin. The clinical and laboratory features of the two groups of women diagnosed with APS were compared. Results. The independent risk factors for pregnancy failure were: (i) the presence of SLE or other autoimmune diseases [odds ratio (OR) 6.0; 95% CI 1.7, 20.8; P = 0.01]; (ii) history of both thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity (OR 12.1; 95% CI 1.3, 115.3; P = 0.03); and (iii) triple [Immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM aCLs plus IgG/IgM anti-beta(2) glycoprotein I antibodies plus LA] aPL positivity (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.0, 16.7; P = 0.05). APS patients diagnosed on the basis of a single positive test and/or history of pregnancy morbidity alone were generally found to have successful pregnancies. Conclusion. It would seem from these findings that the risk of pregnancy failure in APS women planning to conceive can be stratified on the basis of some specific clinical and laboratory features.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available