Clinical manifestations and laboratory findings in patients with lupus anticoagulants

Abstract

Clinical and laboratory features were evaluated in 48 patients with lupus anticoagulants and the efficiency of three different assays in the detection of lupus anticoagulants was compared. The diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants was based on a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin test not corrected in a mixture of 1:1 with normal plasma and lack of specific inhibitors against coagulation factors. Platelet neutralization procedure was positive for lupus anticoagulants in 98% of the patients, tissue thromboplastin inhibition ratio in 79%, and kaolin clotting time index in 77%. At least one of the assays was positive in 100% of the cases. The largest minority of the patients (31%) suffered from systemic lupus erythematosus. The others had a variety of non‐immunological disorders. In the 13 patients who had been operated on, only 1 with renal failure developed hemorrhagic complications after renal biopsy due to thrombocytopathy. The incidence of recurrent spontaneous miscarriage, immune thrombocytopenia and positive direct antiglobulin test, anti‐nuclear and anti‐DNA antibodies and VDRL was significantly higher in patients with lupus anticoagulants and systemic lupus erythematosus compared to patients with lupus anticoagulants but without systemic lupus erythematosus.

Drug-Induced Lupus Anticoagulants and Antiphospholipid Antibodies

“…Although the association of thrombosis and LA is well known, the incidence differs dramatically with the underlying etiology [18,49,52,92]. Autoimmune disease-associated LAs, for example, have a much higher frequency of thrombosis than do infection-associated cases.…”

Antiphospholipid Antibodies and Autoimmune Haemolytic Anaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…After completion of the screening and exclusion process (Figure 1), we identified 59 articles exploring the relationship between aPL and AIHA/DAT (Table 1) that were included in the qualitative survey. Of these, four were not included in the meta-analysis because three did not share common outcomes with other studies [14,17,29] (one presented mean and standard deviations of the aPL titres) [29] and one presented differential data regarding AIHA in arterial and venous thrombosis that we were not able to discriminate [42]. Abbreviations.…”