Cohort study assesses organ damage in antiphospholipid syndrome patients with specific antibody profiles, indicating risk stratification potential.
Objectives Antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies are promising non-criteria aPLs associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) manifestations. Their influence on long-term outcomes and damage remains uncertain. To assess aPS/PT antibodies association with accrual damage and severe APS disease phenotypes, focusing on their potential for risk stratification. Methods This single-centre cohort study involved 163 patients who fulfilled the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria. IgG/IgM aPS/PT, aCL, and anti-β2GPI antibodies were measured by commercial ELISA. Lupus anticoagulant (LA) was detected in accordance with the ISTH-SSC recommendation. Clinical data covered macrovascular, microvascular, obstetric, and hematologic manifestations. Damage was assessed using DIAPS. Results aPS/PT IgG and IgM were positive in 46.0 % and 65.6 %, respectively. aPS/PT IgG positivity was linked to microvascular involvement (58.7 % vs. 34.1 %, p=0.002), obstetric APS (57.4 % vs. 24.6 %, p<0.0001), valvular disease (17.3 % vs. 4.6 %, p=0.008), and thrombocytopenia (37.3 % vs. 12.5 %, p<0.0001). aPS/PT IgM positivity was also associated with microvascular APS (p=0.006), obstetric morbidity (p=0.02), and thrombocytopenia (p=0.01). In multivariable analysis, quadruple aPL positivity (LA + aCL + anti-β2GPI + aPS/PT) was independently linked to damage (OR 4.3, 95 % CI 1.3–14.5; p=0.02), with no other factors remaining significant. Conclusions Both IgG and IgM aPS/PT antibodies are associated with severe APS features, including microvascular and obstetric issues, as well as overall organ damage. Adding aPS/PT to standard aPL tests finds a subgroup of quadruple-positive APS patients at higher risk of damage. These results could help guide personalized APS management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoxha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: