4.7 Article

Antiphospholipid-associated thrombocytopenia or autoimmune hemolytic anemia in patients with or without definite primary antiphospholipid syndrome according to the Sapporo revised classification criteria: a 6-year follow-up study

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 116, Issue 16, Pages 3058-3063

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-05-283507

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The updated Sapporo classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) only include thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity as clinical criteria. To test this notion, we studied 55 patients (80% women) with hematologic manifestations. All fulfilled the laboratory criteria for primary APS. Thirty-five patients (64%) had thrombocytopenia, 14 (25%) had autoimmune hemolytic anemia, and 6 (11%) had both. Twenty-five patients (22 women, 88%) also fulfilled one clinical criterion for APS after a median follow-up of 13.2 years (range, 1.45-37 years), whereas the remaining 30 patients (22 women, 73%) have not had any thrombotic event nor pregnancy morbidity after a median follow-up of 5.4 years (range, 0.12-24 years). No patient developed systemic lupus erythematosus during follow-up. The hematologic manifestation was asynchronous with the APS onset in 84% of patients. The response to treatment was similar regardless of the APS status. Patients with definite APS were more frequently positive for the lupus anticoagulant (63%) than lupus anticoagulant-positive patients without APS (30%; odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-11.4; P < .02). Anticardiolipin or anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein-I antibodies were highly prevalent among the study groups. Our study suggests that, depending upon their antiphospholipid profile, patients with hemocytopenias appear to comprise a peculiar subset of patients with APS; some develop thrombotic and/or obstetric APS whereas others continue with hematologic APS. (Blood.2010;116(16):3058-3063)

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