4.7 Article

Real world experience with antiphospholipid antibody tests: how stable are results over time?

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 64, 期 9, 页码 1321-1325

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2004.031856

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the stability and the degree of variation of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) results over time in a large cohort of well evaluated aPL positive patients; and to analyse factors contributing to aPL variation and the validity of aPL in a real world setting in which aPL tests are done in multiple laboratories. Methods: The clinical characteristics, drug treatment, and 1652 data points for lupus anticoagulant ( LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta(2) glycoprotein I antibodies (anti-beta(2)GPI) were examined in 204 aPL positive patients; 81 of these met the Sapporo criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and 123 were asymptomatic bearers of aPL. Results: 87% of initially positive LA results, 88% of initially negative to low positive aCL results, 75% of initially moderate to high positive aCL results, 96% of initially negative to low positive anti-beta(2)GPI results, and 76% of initially moderate to high positive anti-beta(2)GPI results subsequently remained in the same range regardless of the laboratory performing the test. Aspirin, warfarin, and hydroxychloroquine use did not differ among patients whose aCL titres significantly decreased or increased or remained stable. On same day specimens, the consistency of aCL results among suppliers ranged from 64% to 88% and the correlation ranged from 0.5 to 0.8. Agreement was moderate for aCL IgG and aCL IgM; however, for aCL IgA agreement was marginal. Conclusions: aPL results remained stable for at least three quarters of subsequent tests, regardless of the laboratory performing the test; the small amount of variation that occurred did not appear to be caused by aspirin, warfarin, or hydroxychloroquine use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据