Role of anti‐domain 1‐ß2glycoprotein I antibodies in the diagnosis and risk stratification of antiphospholipid syndrome: reply

Craemer, Ann‐Sophie De; Devreese, Katrien

doi:10.1111/jth.13428

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if anti-D1 positivity has been clearly associated with the risk of thrombosis, a relevant prognostic value of this subgroup of autoantibodies for pregnancy complications is still to be confirmed [130][131][132][133][134]. In several different studies, antia higher prognostic value than anti-D1 for thrombotic events [131,136,137]. Moreover, Andreoli et al have reported that a small but relevant proportion of APS patients can display antipositivity even if they do not react with domain 1 [129].…”

Section: There Is No Evidence That Anti-domain I Can Substitute Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis

Giacomelli

Afeltra

Alunno

et al. 2019

Autoimmunity Reviews

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases are characterised by an abnormal immune system response, complement activation, cytokines dysregulation and inflammation. In last years, despite many progresses in managing these patients, it has been shown that clinical remission is reached in less than 50% of patients and a personalised and tailored therapeutic approach is still lacking resulting in a significant gap between guidelines and real-world practice. In this context, the need for biomarkers facilitating early diagnosis and profiling those individuals at the highest risk for a poor outcome has become of crucial interest. A biomarker generally refers to a measured characteristic which may be used as an indicator of some biological state or condition. Three different types of medical biomarkers has been suggested: i. mechanistic markers; ii. clinical disease markers; iii. therapeutic markers. A combination of biomarkers from these different groups could be used for an ideal more accurate diagnosis and treatment. However, although a growing body of evidence is focused on improving biomarkers, a significant amount of this information is not integrated on standard clinical care. The overarching aim of this work was to clarify the meaning of specific biomarkers during autoimmune diseases; their possible role in confirming diagnosis, predicting outcome and suggesting specific treatments.

show abstract

Section: There Is No Evidence That Anti-domain I Can Substitute Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis

Giacomelli

Afeltra

Alunno

et al. 2019

Autoimmunity Reviews

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, antidomain I IgG titers proved to be stable over a 12week period, suggesting that a single antidomain I measurement is sufficient to classify patients with APS. 53,54 Of note, the reported percentage of antidomain I positivity, as well as the OR for clinical manifestations of APS, varies within the different studies presented in ►Table 1, and this probably can be explained by several causes. First, the patient and control population varies widely in the different studies.…”

Section: Detection Of Domain I Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…48,53,56 In another study, measuring antidomain I antibodies yielded higher odds ratio (OR) for clinical manifestations of APS compared with anti-β 2 GPI antibodies (21.0 vs. 8.6, respectively) and proved to be suitable to replace anti-β 2 GPI assays in an earlier described antiphospholipid score, aPL-S. 52,62 Importantly, looking at aPL profiles, patients at higher clinical risk, hat is, triple-positive patients, 6 were shown to display higher levels of antidomain I antibodies compared with single-or double-positive patients. 47,51,53,54,56,57 IgG antidomain I antibodies were also reported in patients with seronegative APS that fulfilled clinical APS criteria, suggesting that detection of antidomain I antibodies potentially improves the classification of patients with APS. 63,64 Although most studies investigating antidomain I antibodies detect IgG, antidomain I antibodies of all three isotypes have been shown to associate with APS with high specificity.…”

Section: Detection Of Domain I Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…16,28,50 These results are in contrast with two recent studies, in which the clinical performances of anti-β 2 GPI and antidomain I assays proved to be equal. 54,56 Both studies agree that antidomain I IgG do not provide added clinical value to the current classification criteria, but disagree on the potential of antidomain I IgG as replacement of anti-β 2 GPI assays. Other studies confirmed a correlation of antidomain I IgG antibodies and thrombosis, but failed to establish an association with pregnancy morbidity.…”

Section: Detection Of Domain I Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…66 Looking at the titers of antidomain I antibodies, de Craemer et al demonstrated significantly reduced levels in clinically unaffected patients. 54 Antidomain I antibodies proved to be highly prevalent in patients with a history of thrombosis, whereas antibodies targeting other domains were shown in patients with and without thrombosis. Interestingly, antidomain I IgG titers proved to be stable over a 12week period, suggesting that a single antidomain I measurement is sufficient to classify patients with APS.…”

Section: Detection Of Domain I Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Significance of Antibodies against Domain I of Beta-2 Glycoprotein I in Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Kelchtermans

Chayouâ

Laat

2017

Semin Thromb Hemost

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by vascular thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity with the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Progress is being made in understanding the pathogenesis of the syndrome, but difficulties persist in the identification of patients at risk for thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity. Beta-2 glycoprotein I (βGPI), a plasma protein consisting of five sushi domains, is thought to be the main antigenic target of aPLs. Antibodies recognizing domain I of βGPI are predominantly present in patients with an elevated risk of thrombosis, whereas antidomain IV/V antibodies are found in nonthrombotic autoimmune diseases. Indeed, domain I antibodies proved to be pathogenic in multiple studies. Retrospective studies have provided evidence for an added clinical value of antidomain I antibodies in the risk stratification of patients with APS. Still, wide ranges of odds ratio exist between studies, probably due to differences in the study and control population, and detection methods used. Despite the proven pathogenicity of antidomain I antibodies and their correlations with clinical manifestations of APS, heterogeneity of the current studies has prohibited their acceptance in the official diagnostic criteria. Well-designed large longitudinal prospective studies with available and new, preferentially functional, assays for the risk stratification of patients with APS are required.

show abstract

Clinical and Prognostic Significance of Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibody Tests

Bertolaccini

Amengual

Artim-Eser

et al. 2017

Antiphospholipid Syndrome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Role of anti‐domain 1‐ß2glycoprotein I antibodies in the diagnosis and risk stratification of antiphospholipid syndrome: reply

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis

Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis

The Significance of Antibodies against Domain I of Beta-2 Glycoprotein I in Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Clinical and Prognostic Significance of Non-criteria Antiphospholipid Antibody Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About