Tektonidou, Maria G.

Background/Purpose APS ACTION Registry was created to study the natural course of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) over 10 years in persistently antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) positive patients with or without systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Our primary objective was to compare the characteristics of aPL-positive patients with or without thrombocytopenia (TP) and/or autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA). Methods The registry inclusion criteria are positive aPL based on the Revised Sapporo APS Classification Criteria, tested at least twice within 1 year prior to enrollment. For the primary comparison of demographic, clinical, and serologic characteristics in this retrospective study, we divided patients into two groups: TP/AIHA ever and never. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count of <100,000 x 10 9 /L tested twice at least 12 weeks apart, and AIHA was defined as anemia with hemolysis and a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT). For the secondary analysis, we compared patients with TP versus AIHA, and the immunosuppressive use stratified by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification. Results As of April 2022, of 1,039 patients (primary aPL/APS: 618 [59%]; SLE classification: 334 [31%]) included in the registry, 228 (22%) had baseline (historical or current) TP and/or AIHA (TP only: 176 [17%]; AIHA only: 35 [3%], and both: 17 [2%]). Thrombocytopenia and/or AIHA was significantly associated with Asian race, SLE classification, cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, triple aPL (lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibody, and anti-β 2 -glycoprotein-I antibody) positivity, and SLE-related serologic and inflammatory markers. When 101/618 (16%) primary aPL/APS patients and 101/334 (34%) SLE patients with TP and/or AIHA were compared, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil were more commonly reported in lupus patients, however corticosteroid, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab use were similar between groups. Conclusion In our large multi-center international cohort of persistently aPL-positive patients, approximately one-fifth had active or historical TP and/or AIHA at registry entry; half of these patients had additional SLE. Cardiac valve disease, catastrophic/microvascular APS, and triple aPL-positivity were aPL-related clinical and laboratory manifestations associated with TP and/or AIHA, suggesting a more severe APS clinical phenotype in aPL-patients with TP and/or AIHA.

ObjectiveThe objective was to determine the mortality rate as well as the causes and predictors of death in antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)–positive patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification.MethodsThe inclusion criterion for the multicenter international Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) registry is positive aPLs according to the Revised Sapporo Classification Criteria tested within one year before enrollment. Patients are observed every 12 ± 3 months with clinical data and blood collection. For this prospective analysis, we first analyzed the causes of death for patients reported as “deceased.” Secondly, we analyzed risk factors for death using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and calculated survival probability using the Kaplan‐Meier model based on different age groups.ResultsOf 967 patients, 43 (5%) were deceased after a median follow‐up of 5.3 years. Based on the univariate analysis, deceased patients, compared to living patients, were more likely to be older and have a history of arterial thrombosis, catastrophic APS, concomitant systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs), and baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age and for each of the strongest predictors of death, arterial thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50–5.76), concomitant SAIDs (HR 2.97, 95% 1.56–5.63), and baseline any CVD risk factor (HR 2.43, 95% CI 1.05–5.71) were significantly associated with mortality.ConclusionIn our cohort of persistently aPL‐positive patients, the mortality rate was 5% after a median follow‐up of five years and was highest for patients ≥60 years old at registry entry. History of arterial thrombosis, concomitant SAIDs, and baseline any CVD risk factor independently predicted future death.

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Aim The objective was to examine the prevalence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and its risk factors among patients with RA with diabetes mellitus (RA-DM) and patients with RA without diabetes mellitus (RAwoDM), and to evaluate lipid and blood pressure (BP) goal attainment in RA-DM and RAwoDM in primary and secondary prevention. Methods The cohort was derived from the Survey of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from 53 centres/19 countries/3 continents during 2014–2019. We evaluated the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among RA-DM and RAwoDM. The study population was divided into those with and without ASCVD, and within these groups we compared risk factors and CVD preventive treatment between RA-DM and RAwoDM. Results The study population comprised of 10 543 patients with RA, of whom 1381 (13%) had DM. ASCVD was present in 26.7% in RA-DM compared with 11.6% RAwoDM (p<0.001). The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and use of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive agents was higher among RA-DM than RAwoDM (p<0.001 for all). The majority of patients with ASCVD did not reach the lipid goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L. The lipid goal attainment was statistically and clinically significantly higher in RA-DM compared with RAwoDM both for patients with and without ASCVD. The systolic BP target of <140 mm Hg was reached by the majority of patients, and there were no statistically nor clinically significant differences in attainment of BP targets between RA-DM and RAwoDM. Conclusion CVD preventive medication use and prevalence of ASCVD were higher in RA-DM than in RAwoDM, and lipid goals were also more frequently obtained in RA-DM. Lessons may be learnt from CVD prevention programmes in DM to clinically benefit patients with RA .

Abstract Aims To assess differences in estimated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from different world regions and to evaluate the management and goal attainment of lipids and blood pressure (BP). Methods and results The survey of CVD risk factors in patients with RA was conducted in 14 503 patients from 19 countries during 2014–19. The treatment goal for BP was &lt;140/90 mmHg. CVD risk prediction and lipid goals were according to the 2016 European guidelines. Overall, 21% had a very high estimated risk of CVD, ranging from 5% in Mexico, 15% in Asia, 19% in Northern Europe, to 31% in Central and Eastern Europe and 30% in North America. Of the 52% with indication for lipid-lowering treatment (LLT), 44% were using LLT. The lipid goal attainment was 45% and 18% in the high and very high risk groups, respectively. Use of statins in monotherapy was 24%, while 1% used statins in combination with other LLT. Sixty-two per cent had hypertension and approximately half of these patients were at BP goal. The majority of the patients used antihypertensive treatment in monotherapy (24%), while 10% and 5% as a two- or three-drug combination. Conclusion We revealed considerable geographical differences in estimated CVD risk and preventive treatment. Low goal attainment for LLT was observed, and only half the patients obtained BP goal. Despite a high focus on the increased CVD risk in RA patients over the last decade, there is still substantial potential for improvement in CVD preventive measures.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia, is characterised by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. The 16th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force on APS Treatment Trends reviewed the current status with regard to existing and novel treatment trends for APS, which is the focus of this Task Force report. The report addresses current treatments and developments since the last report, on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with APS, antiplatelet agents, adjunctive therapies (hydroxychloroquine, statins and vitamin D), targeted treatment including rituximab, belimumab, and anti-TNF agents, complement inhibition and drugs based on peptides of beta-2-glycoprotein I. In addition, the report summarises potential new players, including coenzyme Q10, adenosine receptor agonists and adenosine potentiation. In each case, the report provides recommendations for clinicians, based on the current state of the art, and suggests a clinical research agenda. The initiation and development of appropriate clinical studies requires a focus on devising suitable outcome measures, including a disease activity index, an optimal damage index, and a specific quality of life index.