Cited by 39Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsVasculitis and related conditions

IgA antiphospholipid antibodies are an independent risk factor for thromboses

Shen, YM, Lee, R, Frenkel, E, Sarode, R·2008·Lupus

Abstract

Antiphospholipid antibodies (lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies, mostly IgG isotype) are strong risk factors for thrombosis. Because a paucity of information on IgA isotype exists in the literature, we retrospectively evaluated the thrombotic significance of IgA antiphospholipid antibodies. We included 472 patients with clinical information on thrombotic events and complete laboratory work-up for antiphospholipid antibodies syndrome. Odds ratios (OR) of various antiphospholipid antibodies for thrombosis were calculated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Lupus anticoagulant alone was detected in 57 (12%) patients, ELISA-based antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) against cardiolipin, phosphatidylserine or beta(2)-glycoprotein-I alone were detected in 131 (28%) patients, whereas 80 (17%) patients had both. Antibody isotype distribution was IgG 32%, IgM 60% and IgA 56%. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant risk of thrombosis in patients with elevated titres of IgA of any ELISA-based antiphospholipid antibodies (OR 1.77). Stepwise logistic regression (multivariate) analysis identified elevated titres of any ELISA-based IgA antiphospholipid antibodies as an independent risk factor for thrombosis (OR 1.6) in the entire cohort, and in the subgroup of patients without concurrent presence of lupus anticoagulant (OR 1.8). IgA antiphospholipid antibodies appear to be a significant independent risk factor for thrombosis, thereby meriting evaluation in patients with unexpected thrombosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0961203308093460

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 39

Authors
Shen, Y., Lee, R., Frenkel, E., & Sarode, R.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sarode, R
Venue
Lupus
Published
2008-11
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
996-1003
ISSN
  • 0961-2033 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0962
OpenAlex
W2110803155
Cited by
39
References
31
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Lupus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
Keywords
antiphospholipid syndrome, thrombosis, risk factors, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, antibody isotypes, phosphatidylserine antibodies
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin A, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Thrombosis, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid, Thrombophilia

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