Cited by 25Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management

Cardiovascular risk factors are major determinants of thrombotic risk in patients with the lupus anticoagulant

Open access
Posch, Florian, Gebhart, Johanna, Rand, Jacob H., Koder, Silvia, Quehenberger, Peter, Pengo, Vittorio, Ay, Cihan, Pabinger, Ingrid·2017·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with the lupus anticoagulant (LA) are at an increased risk of thrombotic events, which in turn increase the risk of death. Understanding the determinants of thrombotic risk in patients with LA may pave the way towards targeted thromboprophylaxis. In the Vienna Lupus Anticoagulant and Thrombosis Study (LATS), we systematically evaluate risk factors for thrombotic events in patients with LA. METHODS: We followed 150 patients (mean age: 41.3 years, female gender: n = 122 (81.3%), history of thrombosis or pregnancy complications: n = 111 (74.0%)), who tested repeatedly positive for LA until development of thrombosis, death, or censoring. The primary endpoint was a composite of arterial or venous thrombotic events (TEs). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 9.5 years (range: 12 days-13.6 years) and 1076 person-years, 32 TEs occurred (arterial: n = 16, venous: n = 16; cumulative 10-year TE incidence: 24.3%). A prolonged lupus-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT-LA) (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.07--5.02), diabetes (adjusted SHR = 4.39, 95% CI: 1.42-13.57), and active smoking (adjusted SHR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.14-5.02) emerged as independent risk factors of both arterial and venous thrombotic risk. A risk model that includes a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT, smoking, and diabetes enabled stratification of LA patients into subgroups with a low, intermediate, and high risk of thrombosis (5-year TE risk of 9.7% (n = 77), 30.9% (n = 51), and 56.8% (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term thrombotic risk in patients with LA is clustered within subjects harboring typical cardiovascular risk factors in addition to a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT, whereas patients with none of these risk factors represent a large subgroup with a low risk of thrombosis.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a prospective cohort of 150 patients with persistently positive lupus anticoagulant, 32 thrombotic events occurred over a median 9.5 years and 1076 person-years, with a cumulative 10-year thrombotic event incidence of 24.3%. Diabetes, active smoking, and a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT independently predicted thrombosis, whereas disease-defining antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with prior but not future thrombotic risk.

Key findings

  • During median follow-up of 9.5 years (range 12 days–13.6 years) and 1076 person-years, 32 thrombotic events occurred (arterial n=16, venous n=16); cumulative 10-year thrombotic event incidence was 24.3% (95% CI 17.0–32.5).
  • Independent risk factors for thrombotic risk were prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT (adjusted SHR=2.31, 95% CI 1.07–5.02), diabetes (adjusted SHR=4.39, 95% CI 1.42–13.57), and active smoking (adjusted SHR=2.31, 95% CI 1.14–5.02).
  • A point-based model assigning 2 points for diabetes and 1 point each for smoking and prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT stratified patients into 0, 1, or ≥2 point groups with 10-year thrombotic event risks of 9.7% (n=77), 30.9% (n=51), and 56.8% (n=22); Harrell’s C was 0.72.
  • Disease-defining antibodies were associated with anamnestic thrombosis, e.g. triple positivity OR=2.5 (95% CI 1.2–5.1, p=0.01), but not consistently with prospective thrombosis, e.g. triple positivity by ISTH cut-off SHR=1.53 (95% CI 0.77–3.04, p=0.226).

Methods

  • Prospective, single-center, biobank-based observational cohort: the Vienna Lupus Anticoagulant and Thrombosis Study (LATS), enrolling 150 adults who tested repeatedly positive for LA (two positive tests at least 12 weeks apart); mean age 41.3 years, 122 (81.3%) female, 111 (74.0%) with history of thrombosis or pregnancy complications.
  • Primary endpoint was a composite of symptomatic, objectively confirmed arterial and/or venous thrombosis; patients were followed until thrombosis, death, or censoring, and patients who became LA negative during follow-up (n=11) were censored at first negative LA test.
  • Analysis used cumulative incidence estimators with death as a competing risk, Gray’s test, and uni-/multivariable Fine–Gray proportional subdistribution hazards models; backward selection (p for exclusion=0.10) built the risk model, with internal validation by Harrell’s C statistic and calibration checks.

Limitations

  • The paper states that results are not directly generalizable to other APS groups, such as patients with SLE or patients positive for aCL or aβ2-GPI without LA; that the observational design cannot provide a valid estimate of anticoagulation benefit because reverse causality likely confounded baseline anticoagulation; that the empirical risk stratification rule was not externally validated; and that the point-based rule loses information versus the full multivariable model (diabetes coefficient rounded from 1.6 to 2 points).
  • Evident from the text: the cohort is single-center and highly selected for LA-positive patients, with a high proportion of prior thrombosis/APS, and only 32 events occurred, limiting precision and power for subgroup and event-type sensitivity analyses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-017-0807-7

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

15 of 30 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    A considerable proportion of patients with LA will not develop thrombosis despite the presence of aPL-associated autoantibodies at high titers.

    “Further, a considerable proportion of patients with LA will not develop thrombosis despite the presence of aPL-associated autoantibodies at high titers [7].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Galli M, Borrelli G, Jacobsen EM, Marfisi RM, Finazzi G, Marchioli R, Wisloff F, Marziali S, Morboeuf O, Barbui T. Clinical significance of different antiphospholipid antibodies in the WAPS (warfarin in the antiphospholipid syndrome) study. Blood. 2007;110(4):1178–83. source

      The section on IgG aPL antibodies in LA-positive patients reports that 32 of 38 patients with high aPT levels and 33 of 37 with high anti-β2GPI levels had a history of thrombosis; some in each group therefore had no such history. The Clinical characteristics section reports thrombosis during a median 3.67-year follow-up in 15 of 112 patients, but it does not establish that a considerable proportion of high-titer, LA-positive patients will never develop thrombosis. (LLM, conf=0.81)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    These results add to the growing body of evidence that shows inconsistent associations between aPL-associated autoantibodies and anamnestic thrombotic risk.

    “These results confirm and validate several previous reports that have implicated these antibodies in the pathogenesis of APS [9, 10, 12, 13, 29, 30], but they also add to the growing body of evidence that shows inconsistent associations between aPL-associated autoantibodies and anamnestic thrombotic risk [3, 16].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chaturvedi S, McCrae KR. The antiphospholipid syndrome: still an enigma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015;2015(1):53–60. source
    • cites [16] Lackner KJ, Muller-Calleja N. Pathogenesis of the antiphospholipid syndrome revisited — time to challenge the dogma. J Thromb Haemost. 2016. source
  • Interpretationown data

    These results confirm and validate several previous reports that have implicated these antibodies in the pathogenesis of APS.

    “These results confirm and validate several previous reports that have implicated these antibodies in the pathogenesis of APS [9, 10, 12, 13, 29, 30], but they also add to the growing body of evidence that shows inconsistent associations between aPL-associated autoantibodies and anamnestic thrombotic risk [3, 16].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [9] Pengo V, Ruffatti A, Tonello M, Cuffaro S, Banzato A, Bison E, Denas G, Padayattil JS. Antiphospholipid syndrome: antibodies to Domain 1 of beta2-glycoprotein 1 correctly classify patients at risk. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(5):782–7. source
    • cites [10] Pengo V, Ruffatti A, Tonello M, Hoxha A, Bison E, Denas G, Padayattil Jose S, Zoppellaro G, Bracco A, Banzato A. Antibodies to Domain 4/5 (Dm4/5) of beta2-glycoprotein 1 (beta2GP1) in different antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody profiles. Thromb Res. 2015;136(1):161–3. source
    • cites [12] de Laat B, Pengo V, Pabinger I, Musial J, Voskuyl AE, Bultink IE, Ruffatti A, Rozman B, Kveder T, de Moerloose P, et al. The association between circulating antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I and thrombosis: an international multicenter study. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(11):1767–73. source
    • cites [13] de Laat HB, Derksen RH, Urbanus RT, Roest M, de Groot PG. beta2-glycoprotein I-dependent lupus anticoagulant highly correlates with thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood. 2004;104(12):3598–602. source
    • cites [29] Galli M, Luciani D, Bertolini G, Barbui T. Lupus anticoagulants are stronger risk factors for thrombosis than anticardiolipin antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. Blood. 2003;101(5):1827–32. source
    • cites [30] Pengo V, Testa S, Martinelli I, Ghirarduzzi A, Legnani C, Gresele P, Passamonti SM, Bison E, Denas G, Jose SP, et al. Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in carriers of isolated lupus anticoagulant. Thromb Res. 2015;135(1):46–9. source
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The results are not directly generalizable to other patient groups included in the wide and heterogenic spectrum of APS, such as patients with SLE or patients who are positive for aCL or aβ2-GPI but not LA.

    “Consequently, our results are not directly generalizable to other patient groups included in the wide and heterogenic spectrum of APS, such as patients with SLE [34, 38] or patients who are positive for aCL or aβ2-GPI but not LA [39].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [34] Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML. GAPSS: the Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(8):1397–403. source

      The citation [39] is attached to the example of patients positive for aCL or anti-β2GPI but not LA, rather than to the citing authors’ conclusion about generalizability. The Patients section lists all three as separately measured antibodies, and the results treat them as separate risk factors. Our copy does not specifically identify or analyze patients positive for aCL or anti-β2GPI while negative for LA. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [38] Sciascia S, Cuadrado MJ, Sanna G, Murru V, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML. Thrombotic risk assessment in systemic lupus erythematosus: validation of the global antiphospholipid syndrome score in a prospective cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(12):1915–20. source
    • cites [39] Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML. The global anti-phospholipid syndrome score in primary APS. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54(1):134–8. source
  • Findingown data

    The 10-year thrombotic risk was estimated at 36.5% in active smokers, compared to 18.8% in ex- or never-smokers (p = 0.022).

    “The 10-year thrombotic risk was estimated at 36.5% in active smokers, as compared to 18.8% in ex- or never-smokers (p = 0.022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    While triple positivity has been shown to be a significant thrombotic risk factor in the WAPS study, several more recent prospective cohorts have also observed a lack of association between triple positivity or other LA-related autoantibodies and thrombosis.

    “While triple positivity has been shown to be a significant thrombotic risk factor in the WAPS study [7], several more recent prospective cohorts have also observed a lack of association between triple positivity or other LA-related autoantibodies and thrombosis [30, 32, 33].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [7] Galli M, Borrelli G, Jacobsen EM, Marfisi RM, Finazzi G, Marchioli R, Wisloff F, Marziali S, Morboeuf O, Barbui T. Clinical significance of different antiphospholipid antibodies in the WAPS (warfarin in the antiphospholipid syndrome) study. Blood. 2007;110(4):1178–83. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [30] Pengo V, Testa S, Martinelli I, Ghirarduzzi A, Legnani C, Gresele P, Passamonti SM, Bison E, Denas G, Jose SP, et al. Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in carriers of isolated lupus anticoagulant. Thromb Res. 2015;135(1):46–9. source
    • cites [32] Bazzan M, Vaccarino A, Stella S, Sciascia S, Montaruli B, Bertero MT, Carignola R, Roccatello D. Patients with antiphosholipid syndrome and thrombotic recurrences: a real world observation (the Piedmont cohort study). Lupus. 2015;25. doi: 10.1177/0961203315617538 source
    • cites [33] Amory CF, Levine SR, Brey RL, Gebregziabher M, Tuhrim S, Tilley BC, Simpson AC, Sacco RL, Mohr JP. Antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent thrombotic events: persistence and portfolio. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;40(5-6):293–300. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In vivo, a complex interplay of aPL antibodies with coagulation factors, platelets, and the vessel wall induces a hypercoagulable state that can lead to overt thrombosis and/or adverse pregnancy outcomes.

    “Conversely, in vivo, a complex and still enigmatic interplay of these antibodies with coagulation factors, platelets, and the vessel wall induces a hypercoagulable state that can lead to overt thrombosis and/or adverse pregnancy outcomes [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chaturvedi S, McCrae KR. The antiphospholipid syndrome: still an enigma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015;2015(1):53–60. source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    It is currently unclear which patient groups are at the highest risk for the development of thrombotic complications.

    “While anticoagulation may reduce the risk of thrombosis, it is currently unclear which patient groups are at the highest risk for the development of thrombotic complications [3].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Chaturvedi S, McCrae KR. The antiphospholipid syndrome: still an enigma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015;2015(1):53–60. source

      The Assessment of thrombotic risk section says identifying individuals at greatest risk remains challenging, particularly when predicting first thrombosis in asymptomatic aPL carriers. But the Conclusions identify patients with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies as having the highest risk of clinical events, so the claim overstates how little is known about high-risk groups. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The occurrence of thrombosis in patients with LA is associated with an excessive increase in the risk of death, leading to impaired relative survival compared to an age- and sex-matched reference population.

    “Cervera et al. and our group have recently demonstrated that the occurrence of thrombosis in patients with LA is associated with an excessive increase in the risk of death, which in turn leads to a significantly impaired relative survival of these patients in comparison to an age- and sex-matched reference population [5, 6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] Gebhart J, Posch F, Koder S, Perkmann T, Quehenberger P, Zoghlami C, Ay C, Pabinger I. Increased mortality in patients with the lupus anticoagulant: the Vienna Lupus Anticoagulant and Thrombosis Study (LATS). Blood. 2015;125(22):3477–83. source
    • cites [6] Cervera R, Serrano R, Pons-Estel GJ, Ceberio-Hualde L, Shoenfeld Y, de Ramon E, Buonaiuto V, Jacobsen S, Zeher MM, Tarr T, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1011–8. source

      The Mortality and causes of death section (page unavailable) reports that severe thromboses caused 36.5% of deaths and that the APS cohort had an unadjusted standardized mortality ratio of 1.8 versus the general population. It does not establish that thrombosis specifically increased mortality among patients with lupus anticoagulant (LA), or report relative survival against an age- and sex-matched reference population. The Discussion (page unavailable) says no clinical or immunological parameter was identified as prognostic for mortality. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The relative frequencies of arterial and venous events as well as the proportion of patients receiving anticoagulation while developing an event were very similar to the results of the Euro-Phospholipid study.

    “Further, the relative frequencies of arterial and venous events as well as the proportion of patients receiving anticoagulation while developing an event were very similar to the results of the Euro-Phospholipid study [6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Cervera R, Serrano R, Pons-Estel GJ, Ceberio-Hualde L, Shoenfeld Y, de Ramon E, Buonaiuto V, Jacobsen S, Zeher MM, Tarr T, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1011–8. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A risk score for anamnestic thrombotic risk in patients with SLE, the Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score (GAPSS), includes two general cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension and hyperlipidemia.

    “Further, a risk score for anamnestic thrombotic risk in patients with SLE, the Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score (GAPSS), includes two general cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension and hyperlipidemia [34].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML. GAPSS: the Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(8):1397–403. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The 10-year cumulative TE incidence of 24.3% compares well to the thrombotic risk observed in the WAPS study and the Euro-Phospholipid Project registry, but was lower than the value in the Piedmont cohort study and higher than that in the study by Pengo et al.

    “The 10-year cumulative TE incidence of 24.3% compares well to the thrombotic risk observed in the WAPS study [31] and the very large Euro-Phospholipid Project registry [6], but was lower than the value in the recently published Piedmont cohort study [32] and higher than that in the recently published study by Pengo et al. [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [31] Finazzi G, Marchioli R, Brancaccio V, Schinco P, Wisloff F, Musial J, Baudo F, Berrettini M, Testa S, D'Angelo A, et al. A randomized clinical trial of high-intensity warfarin vs. conventional antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome (WAPS). J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(5):848–53. source
    • cites [6] Cervera R, Serrano R, Pons-Estel GJ, Ceberio-Hualde L, Shoenfeld Y, de Ramon E, Buonaiuto V, Jacobsen S, Zeher MM, Tarr T, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1011–8. source
    • cites [32] Bazzan M, Vaccarino A, Stella S, Sciascia S, Montaruli B, Bertero MT, Carignola R, Roccatello D. Patients with antiphosholipid syndrome and thrombotic recurrences: a real world observation (the Piedmont cohort study). Lupus. 2015;25. doi: 10.1177/0961203315617538 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Preclinical evidence from animal models has demonstrated that the presence of LA-related autoantibodies alone is insufficient for causing overt thrombosis, and a "second hit" such as inflammation or infection may be necessary to transform the prothrombotic potential induced by LA-related autoantibodies into overt thrombosis.

    “Second, preclinical evidence from animal models has demonstrated that the presence of LA-related autoantibodies alone is insufficient for causing overt thrombosis, and a “second hit” such as inflammation or infection may be necessary to transform the prothrombotic potential induced by LA-related autoantibodies into overt thrombosis [35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Mackworth-Young CG. Antiphospholipid syndrome: multiple mechanisms. Clin Exp Immunol. 2004;136(3):393–401. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A weak multivariable association between exposure to statins and a higher risk of thrombosis was observed.

    “However, a weak multivariable association between exposure to statins and a higher risk of thrombosis was observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Death was present as a competing risk in this population, with 12 patients having died during follow-up without developing thrombotic events.

    “With 12 patients having died during follow-up without developing TE, death was clearly present as a competing risk in this population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After a median follow-up interval of nearly 10 years and more than 1000 person-years spent at risk of thrombosis and death, a high incidence of thrombotic complications was observed despite the fact that the majority of patients with a history of thrombosis were on anticoagulation therapy.

    “After a median follow-up interval of nearly 10 years and more than 1000 person-years spent at risk of thrombosis and death, we observed a high incidence of thrombotic complications despite the fact that the majority of patients with a history of thrombosis were on anticoagulation therapy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In a sensitivity analysis estimating the risk of arterial and venous prospective events separately, diabetes and smoking appeared to be more relevant for predicting arterial events, whereas the prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT was more associated with the occurrence of venous events.

    “In a sensitivity analysis estimating the risk of arterial and venous prospective events separately, we could observe that diabetes and smoking appeared to be more relevant for predicting arterial events, whereas the prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT was more associated with the occurrence of venous events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both hypertension and dyslipidemia were strongly correlated with diabetes in the study.

    “Both hypertension and dyslipidemia were strongly correlated with diabetes in our study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Two-thirds of the patients with a history of thrombosis were on oral anticoagulants at baseline.

    “Two-thirds of the patients with a history of thrombosis were on oral anticoagulants at baseline, which reflects the decision of individual physicians to anticoagulate these patients due to a high perceived risk of recurrent thrombosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The presence of antibodies against domain I of β2-GPI and "triple positivity" were more frequent in patients who had a history of thrombosis.

    “Specifically, we could observe that the presence of antibodies against domain I of β2-GPI and “triple positivity” were more frequent in patients who had a history of thrombosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The relative contribution of diabetes towards thrombotic risk, as compared to smoking status and the lupus-sensitive aPTT, would have led to an uneven point score of 1.6 for diabetes, which was rounded to 2.

    “In detail, the relative contribution of diabetes towards thrombotic risk, as compared to smoking status and the lupus-sensitive aPTT, would have led to an uneven point score of 1.6 for diabetes, which was rounded to 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In vitro, interference by aPL autoantibodies with the clotting cascade is reflected in prolongation of phospholipid-dependent clotting assays, such as the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).

    “In vitro, the interference by these autoantibodies with the clotting cascade is reflected in the prolongation of phospholipid-dependent clotting assays, such as the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Du VX, Kelchtermans H, de Groot PG, de Laat B. From antibody to clinical phenotype, the black box of the antiphospholipid syndrome: pathogenic mechanisms of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb Res. 2013;132(3):319–26. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Internal validation procedures showed that the risk stratification rule featured a high discriminative performance and was well calibrated for prediction of 10-year thrombotic risk.

    “Internal validation procedures showed that this risk stratification rule featured a high discriminative performance and was well calibrated for prediction of 10-year thrombotic risk.”
    • Also stated in: § Thrombosis risk stratification in patients with LA · boosted
      “Internal validation procedures showed a strong discrimination according to this point-based rule (Harrell’s C: 0.72), and calibration was excellent for 10-year thrombotic risk and moderate for 5-year thrombotic risk (Additional file 13: Figure S4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This sensitivity analysis has very low power.

    “Although this analysis has very low power, it illustrates a differential pathobiology of these three risk factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Long-term thrombotic risk in patients with LA is clustered within subjects harboring typical cardiovascular risk factors in addition to a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT, whereas patients with none of these risk factors represent a large subgroup with a low risk of thrombosis.

    “Long-term thrombotic risk in patients with LA is clustered within subjects harboring typical cardiovascular risk factors in addition to a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT, whereas patients with none of these risk factors represent a large subgroup with a low risk of thrombosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The associations between diabetes, smoking, prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT and thrombotic risk are causal (these factors determine thrombotic risk).
    • Rests on an assumption: The LATS cohort is representative of the broader population of patients with LA.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The data support the concept that diabetes and active smoking may represent two factors for this "second-hit phenomenon" and that the adverse cardiovascular consequences of diabetes and smoking may lead to a deleterious thrombotic risk increase in patients with LA.

    “Our data support the concept that diabetes and active smoking may represent two factors for this “second-hit phenomenon” and that the adverse cardiovascular consequences of diabetes and smoking may lead to a deleterious thrombotic risk increase in patients with LA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The cohort features several strengths, including a stringent prospective design with a long follow-up, a small drop-out rate, and the time-dependent censoring of patients who became LA negative over time.

    “Nevertheless, we would like to mention that our cohort features several strengths, including a stringent prospective design with a long follow-up, a small drop-out rate, and the time-dependent censoring of patients who became LA negative over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This must not be interpreted as an absence of efficacy, because reverse causality has likely confounded this observational result.

    “Of course, this must not be interpreted as an absence of efficacy, because reverse causality has likely confounded this observational result.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Internal validation procedures showed a strong discrimination according to the point-based rule (Harrell's C: 0.72), and calibration was excellent for 10-year thrombotic risk and moderate for 5-year thrombotic risk.

    “Internal validation procedures showed a strong discrimination according to this point-based rule (Harrell’s C: 0.72), and calibration was excellent for 10-year thrombotic risk and moderate for 5-year thrombotic risk (Additional file 13: Figure S4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The suggested risk stratification rule has some loss of information as compared to the full multivariable model, which is attributable to "rounding" of regression coefficients to a point-based system.

    “Fourth, our suggested risk stratification rule has some loss of information as compared to the full multivariable model, which is attributable to “rounding” of regression coefficients to a point-based system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The associations between diabetes, smoking, prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT and thrombotic risk are causal (these factors determine thrombotic risk).

    “Cardiovascular risk factors are major determinants of thrombotic risk in patients with the lupus anticoagulant”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The LATS cohort is representative of the broader population of patients with LA.

    “Long-term thrombotic risk in patients with LA is clustered within subjects harboring typical cardiovascular risk factors in addition to a prolonged lupus-sensitive aPTT, whereas patients with none of these risk factors represent a large subgroup with a low risk of thrombosis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The composite endpoint of arterial and venous thrombosis is a valid single outcome for risk stratification.

    “The primary endpoint of the study is a composite of symptomatic, objectively confirmed arterial and/or venous thrombosis.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Domain I antibody missing-data percentage is too high

    Minor

    With 144 measurements among 150 patients, six are missing. That is 4.0% of the cohort, not the reported 6.0%.

    Reported 6 · recomputed 4

  • Age hazard ratio falls outside its confidence interval

    Minor

    Table 3 gives an adjusted age hazard ratio of 1.07, but its reported 95% confidence interval ends at 1.04.

  • Risk-group event rates are labeled 5-year and 10-year risks

    Minor

    The abstract calls the three risk-group rates 5-year risks, but the Results section identifies the same rates for the same group sizes as 10-year risks.

  • Discussion reverses the protein Z IgM finding

    Minor

    The discussion says higher protein Z IgM was associated with a history of thrombosis. Table 1 instead shows a lower median in patients with prior thrombosis than in those without (5.5 versus 6.3), with p = 0.210.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Posch, F., Gebhart, J., Rand, J. H., Koder, S., Quehenberger, P., Pengo, V., Ay, C., & Pabinger, I.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna (AT)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Pabinger, Ingrid
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2017-03-10
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
54-54
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2593137415
Cited by
25
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Austrian Science Fund (AT) (SFB-54)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
lupus anticoagulant, thrombosis risk, cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes mellitus, smoking, arterial thrombosis, venous thrombosis, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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