Treatment of 139 pregnancies in antiphospholipid-positive women not fulfilling criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: a retrospective study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The effect of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on pregnancy outcome in antiphospholipid (aPL)-positive women not fulfilling the criteria for antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) was evaluated retrospectively. METHODS: We evaluated 139 pregnancies of 114 aPL-positive women not fulfilling the Sydney classification criteria for definite APS (104 treated with LDA, 35 untreated). Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) any titer of aPL and no previous pregnancy or no pregnancy losses (defined as aPL carriers); (2) any titer of aPL and 1 or 2 pregnancy losses before the 10th gestational week. No women had previous thrombosis. The rate of pregnancy loss, gestational age at delivery, and birth weight percentile were compared in the treated and untreated patients. Associations between clinical and laboratory characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: The rate of pregnancy loss was low in both treated and untreated groups (7.7% vs 2.9%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of pregnancy loss, gestational age at birth, or birth weight percentile in the treated and untreated groups. There were significant associations between gestational age at birth ≤ 34th week and positivity for lupus anticoagulant (p = 0.025) and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies at titers > 99th (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: LDA treatment does not appear to improve pregnancy outcome in low-risk women not fulfilling the criteria for APS. Because antibody profile seems to influence pregnancy outcome, further studies of patients stratified according to their antibody profile are warranted.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Data from one placebo-controlled RCT in six women with SLE and three low-quality studies in women without SLE found no difference in live birth prevalence with LDA use.
“Data from one placebo-controlled RCT of LDA in six women with SLE42 and data from three low-quality studies (two RCTs, one retrospective cohort)43–45 of women without SLE found no difference in the prevalence of live births with use of LDA.”
From EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults (2019) · cites this paper as [45]
The Results report no statistically significant difference in pregnancy loss between the LDA and non-LDA groups, supporting the live-birth finding for this retrospective study. But the Results also identify three participants with SLE, so the study was not exclusively of women without SLE; the Discussion says its results cannot be extended to SLE. The RCTs in the citing sentence are attributed to other references, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Tuthill JI, Khamashta MA. Management of antiphospholid syndrome. J Autoimmun 2009;33:92-8.
- Brandt JT, Triplett DA, Alvin B, Scharrer I. Criteria for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant. Thromb Haemost 1995; 74:1185-90.
- Authors
- Del Ross, T., Ruffatti, A., Visentin, M. S., Tonello, M., Calligaro, A., Favaro, M., Hoxha, A., & Punzi, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Padua (IT)
- Venue
- The Journal of Rheumatology
- Publisher
- The Journal of Rheumatology
- Published
- 2013-02-15
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 425-429
- ISSN
- 0315-162X (ISSN-L)
- 1499-2752
- OpenAlex
- W2044445295
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Keywords
- antiphospholipid antibodies, antiphospholipid syndrome, low-dose aspirin, pregnancy outcomes, miscarriage, lupus anticoagulant, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, gestational age at delivery, birth weight
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aspirin, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid, beta 2-Glycoprotein I
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