Cited by 19Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchVasculitis and related conditionsSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases

Prevalence, outcome and management of patients with SLE and secondary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome after aPL seroconversion

Zen, Margherita, Loredo Martinez, Marta, Benvenuti, Francesco, Gatto, Mariele, Saccon, Francesca, Larosa, Maddalena, Iaccarino, Luca, Doria, Andrea·2021·Rheumatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The withdrawal of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with SLE and secondary aPL syndrome (SAPS) who become seronegative has not been clearly investigated to date. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of aPL seroconversion and the prognosis of SLE patients with SAPS who withdrew OAC after aPL negativization. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data of all SLE patients (ACR criteria) with SAPS (Sydney criteria) prospectively followed-up in our clinic. aPL seroconversion was defined as negativization of lupus anticoagulant, aCL, and anti-β2glycoprotein-1 antibodies on two or more consecutive measurements, at least 12 weeks apart. OAC discontinuation was defined as the definitive withdrawal of all anticoagulants. RESULTS: Fifty-five out of 513 (10.7%) SLE patients had vascular SAPS. Sixteen patients (29.1%) became aPL seronegative during follow-up. Immunosuppressive therapy predicted aPL negativization (odds ratio 5.211, 95%CI 1.341, 20.243), whereas APS diagnosis prior to that of SLE (odds ratio 0.078, 95%CI 0.008, 0.799) and triple-positive profile (odds ratio 0.264, 95%CI 0.115, 0.609) were negative predictors of aPL negativization. OAC was discontinued in 13/55 patients (23.6%), after a median follow-up of 45 months (range 1-276) from aPL seroconversion. SLE-related modifiable risk factors for thrombosis were observed in 10/13 patients (77%) at the time of the thrombotic event. No thrombotic recurrences were observed during a mean follow-up time of 44 (19) months from OAC discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that OAC can be safely discontinued in SLE patients who became persistently seronegative for aPL, at least when aPL-related thrombotic events occurred in presence of other thrombotic risk factors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa463

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In that study, triple positivity and diagnosis of APS prior to SLE were predictive of aPL stability over time.

    “Treatment with immunosuppression was predictive of development of seronegativity, whereas triple positivity and diagnosis of APS prior to SLE were predictive of aPL stability over time.10”
  • In that study, treatment with immunosuppression was predictive of development of seronegativity.

    “Treatment with immunosuppression was predictive of development of seronegativity, whereas triple positivity and diagnosis of APS prior to SLE were predictive of aPL stability over time.10”
  • The analysis cannot be applied to patients with APS who became persistently negative for aPL and in whom anticoagulation was safely discontinued.

    “There have been a number of reports of safe discontinuation of anticoagulation in patients with APS who became persistently negative for aPL, and our analysis cannot be applied to these patients.10,37”
  • The proportion of patients in the cohort who remained persistently LA+ (72%) was similar to rates in other studies that used different definitions of LA stability and positivity (78% in Gkrouzman et al, 71% in Zen et al, and 87% in Erkan et al).

    “However, the proportion of patients in our cohort who remained persistently LA+ (72%) was similar to the rates in other studies that used different definitions of LA stability and positivity (78% in the study by Gkrouzman et al, 71% in the study by Zen et al, and 87% in study by Erkan et al.).9,10,36”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zen, M., Loredo Martinez, M., Benvenuti, F., Gatto, M., Saccon, F., Larosa, M., Iaccarino, L., & Doria, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Division of Rheumatology, Lozano Blesa University Clinical Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain
Corresponding author
Doria, Andrea
Venue
Rheumatology
Published
2020-09-17
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
1313-1320
ISSN
  • 1462-0324 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-0332
OpenAlex
W3087560814
Cited by
19
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Lara D. Veeken (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ethics Committee of the ‘Azienda Ospedaliera- Università degli Studi di Padova’
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Keywords
systemic lupus erythematosus, secondary antiphospholipid syndrome, thrombosis, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, immunosuppressive therapy, thrombosis risk factors, recurrent thrombosis
MeSH terms
Anticoagulants, Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Thrombosis, Prevalence, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Treatment Outcome, 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