4.6 Article

Increased circulating platelet-leucocyte complexes and platelet activation in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 451-459

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03101.x

关键词

platelet activation markers; platelet-leucocyte complexes; antiphospholipid syndrome; systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is possible that platelet activation may play a pathogenic role in the increased risk of thrombosis associated with antiphospholipid antibodies (APA). In this study, levels of in vivo platelet activation were measured in 20 patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS) and 30 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients (14 of whom had secondary APS) using sensitive flow cytometry. Soluble P-selectin levels were also assayed. Platelet CD63 expression was significantly higher in PAPS than normal controls (P = 0.007), as well as SLE patients with and without secondary APS (P = 0.03 and P = 0.002 respectively). PAC-1 binding was significantly higher in PAPS than the control group (P = 0.007) and SLE patients without APS (P = 0.015). Platelet-leucocyte complexes were significantly higher in SLE patients than both PAPS and the control group, and platelet-monocyte complexes were significantly increased in RAPS compared with the control group, (Platelet-leucocyte complexes were also significantly higher than controls in 10 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients without APA). Soluble P-selectin levels were significantly higher in PAPS and SLE patients than the control group. Platelet CD62p expression. annexin V binding and platelet microparticle numbers were not increased in PAPS or SLE patients. We conclude that there is evidence of increased platelet activation in PAPS and SLE, and this is important to note as it may have potential therapeutic implications with respect to use of antiplatelet agents in these patients.

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

4.6
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