Cargando…

Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE: Persistent positivity for lupus anticoagulant has been associated with an increased risk of thrombosis among patients with SLE. Persistent positivity is often defined as having two positive assessments separated by more than 90 days. Our objective was to determine whether frequent repeate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petri, Michelle A, Avci, Mertcan, Magder, Laurence S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607609/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33139453
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2020-000406
_version_ 1783604674759229440
author Petri, Michelle A
Avci, Mertcan
Magder, Laurence S
author_facet Petri, Michelle A
Avci, Mertcan
Magder, Laurence S
author_sort Petri, Michelle A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Persistent positivity for lupus anticoagulant has been associated with an increased risk of thrombosis among patients with SLE. Persistent positivity is often defined as having two positive assessments separated by more than 90 days. Our objective was to determine whether frequent repeated lupus anticoagulant testing would identify more patients with persistent positivity, and whether the additional patients identified were still at increased risk of thrombosis. METHODS: Using a large longitudinal cohort with frequent lupus anticoagulant testing, we compared three different hypothetical clinical strategies for identifying persistent positivity: (1) assessment of lupus anticoagulant twice more than 90 days apart; (2) assessment of lupus anticoagulant annually, with repeat testing if an annual assessment was positive; and (3) assessment of lupus anticoagulant 16 times (approximately quarterly for 4 years). The prevalence of persistent positivity was compared between the approaches and by demographic subgroups. Subgroups based on these definitions were compared with respect to the risk of thrombosis in subsequent follow-up using discrete survival analysis. RESULTS: Among the 785 patients included in our analysis, the prevalence of persistent lupus anticoagulant as defined by the first two patient assessments was 4.3%. Annual assessment resulted in a prevalence of 6.6%, and using all 16 assessments resulted in a prevalence of 10.5%. The prevalence was substantially higher in men than in women, and in Caucasians than in African-Americans (p<0.01 for all comparisons). The rate of thrombosis was significantly elevated among those with persistently positive lupus anticoagulant by any definition (HR ranging from 2.75 to 3.42) relative to those without persistently positive lupus anticoagulant. CONCLUSION: While there are other risk factors for thrombosis (including other antiphospholipid subtypes), more frequent testing (not limited to twice over 3 months) for lupus anticoagulant would be useful for identifying more patients with SLE at elevated risk for thrombosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7607609
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76076092020-11-12 Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus Petri, Michelle A Avci, Mertcan Magder, Laurence S Lupus Sci Med Biomarker Studies OBJECTIVE: Persistent positivity for lupus anticoagulant has been associated with an increased risk of thrombosis among patients with SLE. Persistent positivity is often defined as having two positive assessments separated by more than 90 days. Our objective was to determine whether frequent repeated lupus anticoagulant testing would identify more patients with persistent positivity, and whether the additional patients identified were still at increased risk of thrombosis. METHODS: Using a large longitudinal cohort with frequent lupus anticoagulant testing, we compared three different hypothetical clinical strategies for identifying persistent positivity: (1) assessment of lupus anticoagulant twice more than 90 days apart; (2) assessment of lupus anticoagulant annually, with repeat testing if an annual assessment was positive; and (3) assessment of lupus anticoagulant 16 times (approximately quarterly for 4 years). The prevalence of persistent positivity was compared between the approaches and by demographic subgroups. Subgroups based on these definitions were compared with respect to the risk of thrombosis in subsequent follow-up using discrete survival analysis. RESULTS: Among the 785 patients included in our analysis, the prevalence of persistent lupus anticoagulant as defined by the first two patient assessments was 4.3%. Annual assessment resulted in a prevalence of 6.6%, and using all 16 assessments resulted in a prevalence of 10.5%. The prevalence was substantially higher in men than in women, and in Caucasians than in African-Americans (p<0.01 for all comparisons). The rate of thrombosis was significantly elevated among those with persistently positive lupus anticoagulant by any definition (HR ranging from 2.75 to 3.42) relative to those without persistently positive lupus anticoagulant. CONCLUSION: While there are other risk factors for thrombosis (including other antiphospholipid subtypes), more frequent testing (not limited to twice over 3 months) for lupus anticoagulant would be useful for identifying more patients with SLE at elevated risk for thrombosis. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7607609/ /pubmed/33139453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2020-000406 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Biomarker Studies
Petri, Michelle A
Avci, Mertcan
Magder, Laurence S
Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title_full Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title_fullStr Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title_short Evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
title_sort evaluation of different ways to identify persistent positivity of lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus
topic Biomarker Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607609/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33139453
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2020-000406
work_keys_str_mv AT petrimichellea evaluationofdifferentwaystoidentifypersistentpositivityoflupusanticoagulantinsystemiclupuserythematosus
AT avcimertcan evaluationofdifferentwaystoidentifypersistentpositivityoflupusanticoagulantinsystemiclupuserythematosus
AT magderlaurences evaluationofdifferentwaystoidentifypersistentpositivityoflupusanticoagulantinsystemiclupuserythematosus