Cited by 92Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchReproductive System and PregnancyBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Antiphospholipid antibodies (APA) and recurrent pregnancy loss: treating a unique APA positive population

Franklin, R. D., Kutteh, W. H.·2002·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Background Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) has been associated with antiphospholipid antibodies (APA) including anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant. Therapy using heparin and aspirin has been shown to significantly improve the live birth rate. We evaluated whether other APA should be considered as a basis for treatment in women with RPL. We also assessed the efficacy of heparin and aspirin therapy compared with aspirin alone in these women. Methods A two-centred, prospective, cohort evaluation of 79 women with two or more consecutive pregnancy losses who underwent a complete evaluation for RPL that was negative except for positive APA. Women with RPL and APA to cardiolipin (CL), phosphatidyl serine (PS) and/or lupus anticoagulant (LAC) treated with heparin and aspirin (group 1) were compared with those with other positive APA (to phosphatidyl inositol, phosphatidyl glycerol and/or phosphatidyl ethanolamine) treated with heparin or aspirin (group 2) or treated with aspirin alone (group 3). Results There were no significant differences in patients' demographics between groups. There were 19 viable infants born to 25 women (76%) in group 1, 18 viable infants born to the 28 women (64%) in group 2, and 12 viable infants born to the 26 women (46%) in group 3. Only the comparison between group 1 and group 3 reached statistical significance (P = 0.03). Conclusion APA other than CL, PS and LAC may be associated with RPL.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/17.11.2981

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pooled data from one RCT in women with first-trimester losses and eight observational studies not exclusively early losses indicated higher likelihood of live births with LDA plus prophylactic heparin versus LDA alone.

    “Pooled data from one RCT including only patients with a history of first trimester losses46 and eight supporting observational studies47–54 that did not exclusively study women with early pregnancy losses indicated a higher likelihood of live births with combination treatment with LDA and heparin at prophylactic dosage versus LDA alone.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franklin, R. D., & Kutteh, W. H.
Affiliations
University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
2981-2985
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2170555033
Cited by
92
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Keywords
antiphospholipid antibodies, recurrent pregnancy loss, aspirin monotherapy, anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, phosphatidylserine antibodies, live birth rate, pregnancy outcomes
MeSH terms
Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Anticoagulants, Aspirin, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Fibrinolytic Agents, Heparin, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review