4.7 Article

Predictive value of persistent versus transient antiphospholipid antibody subtypes for the risk of thrombotic events in pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 106, Issue 13, Pages 4152-4158

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2048

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objectives were to determine, in children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), (1) the association of antiphosholipid antibody (APLA) subtypes with thrombotic events (TEs) and (2) the predictive value of persistent versus transient antibodies for TEs. This is a cohort study of 58 SLE children in whom lupus anticoagulants (LAs), anticardiolipin antibodies (ACLAs), anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein-I (anti-beta(2)-GPI), and antiprothrombin (anti-PT) were assessed on at least 2 occasions (more than 3 months apart). Antibodies were classified as persistent (positive on at least 2 occasions) or transient (positive once). Outcomes were symptomatic TEs confirmed by objective radiographic tests identified retrospectively and prospectively. Seven of the 58 patients (12%) had 10 TEs; 5 patients had TEs during prospective follow-up. Persistent LAs showed the strongest association with TEs (P <.001). Persistent ACLAS (P =.003) and anti-beta(2)-GPI (P =.002) were significantly associated with TEs; anti-PT (P =.063) showed a trend. Persistent or transient LAs and anti-beta(2)-GPI showed similar strength of association, while ACLAs and anti-PT were no longer associated with TEs. Positivity for multiple APLA subtypes showed stronger associations with TEs than for individual APLA subtypes because of improved specificity. Lupus anticoagulant is the strongest predictor of the risk of TEs; other APLA subtypes provide no additional diagnostic value. Anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-PT require serial testing because only persistent antibodies are associated with TEs.

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