4.3 Article

Transiently positive anticardiolipin antibodies and risk of thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

LUPUS
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 810-816

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203307083316

关键词

antiphospholipid antibodies; lupus anticoagulant; anticardiolipin antibodies; systemic lupus erythematosus; thrombosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluctuations in the titers of anticarcholipin antibodies (aCL) have been reported in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, but their relation with thrombosis is not completely understood. Prospective inception cohort of 237 patients with SLE (American College of Rheumatology criteria). Positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) was defined according to Sapporo criteria. aCL was defined as persistently positive when more than two-thirds of the determinations were positive during follow-up. Patients were classified into four groups: A [positive lupus anticoagulant (LA)], B (negative LA and persistently positive aCL), C (negative LA and transiently positive aCL) and D (negative LA and aCL). Of these 237 patients, 211 (89%) patients were women. Median age at diagnosis and follow-up were 32 (2-78) and 10 (1-31) years, respectively: 33 (13.9%) 23 (9.7%) 42 (17.7%) and 139 (58.6%) patients were classified in groups A, B, C and D, respectively. Thirty (12.6%) and 23 (9.7%) patients suffered arterial and venous thrombotic events, respectively. Adjusted risk for arterial thrombosis was increased in groups A [odds ratio (OR) 15.69, 95% confidential interval (CI) 4.79-51.42, P < 0.001] and B (OR 7.63, 95% Cl 2.00-29.08, P = 0.003), but not in Group C when compared with group D. Adjusted risk of venous thrombosis was increased in group A (OR 4.24 95% CI 1.36-13.20 P = 0.013). but not in Groups B or C when compared with group D. Risk of thrombosis is not increased in SLE patients with negative LA and transiently positive aCL, even fulfilling Sapporo laboratory criteria, when compared with aPL-negative SLE 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

4.3
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