Cargando…

Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances

Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antib...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vandevelde, Arne, Devreese, Katrien M. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35456258
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082164
_version_ 1784690908734685184
author Vandevelde, Arne
Devreese, Katrien M. J.
author_facet Vandevelde, Arne
Devreese, Katrien M. J.
author_sort Vandevelde, Arne
collection PubMed
description Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9025581
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90255812022-04-23 Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances Vandevelde, Arne Devreese, Katrien M. J. J Clin Med Review Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications. MDPI 2022-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9025581/ /pubmed/35456258 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082164 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Vandevelde, Arne
Devreese, Katrien M. J.
Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title_full Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title_fullStr Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title_full_unstemmed Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title_short Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances
title_sort laboratory diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: insights and hindrances
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35456258
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082164
work_keys_str_mv AT vandeveldearne laboratorydiagnosisofantiphospholipidsyndromeinsightsandhindrances
AT devreesekatrienmj laboratorydiagnosisofantiphospholipidsyndromeinsightsandhindrances