Antiphospholipid syndrome in 2014: more clinical manifestations, novel pathogenic players and emerging biomarkers

  • Pier Luigi Meroni1, 2Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Cecilia Beatrice Chighizola1, 2,

      Affiliated with

      • Francesca Rovelli1 and

        Affiliated with

        • Maria Gerosa1

          Affiliated with

          Arthritis Research & Therapy201416:209

          DOI: 10.1186/ar4549

          Published: 23 April 2014

          Abstract

          The clinical spectrum of the anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) is not limited to vascular thrombosis or miscarriages but includes additional manifestations that cannot be explained solely by a thrombophilic state. Anti-cardiolipin, anti-beta2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) and lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays are not only the formal diagnostic and classification laboratory tools but also parameters to stratify the risk to develop the clinical manifestations of the syndrome. In particular, anti-β2GPI antibodies reacting with an immunodominant epitope on domain I of the molecule were reported as the prevalent specificity in APS patients, correlating with a more aggressive clinical picture. Several laboratory assays to improve the diagnostic and predictive power of the standard tests have been proposed. Plates coated with the phosphatidylserine-prothrombin complex for detecting antibodies represent a promising laboratory tool correlating with LA and with clinical manifestations. Anti-phospholipid antibodies can be found in patients with full-blown APS, in those with thrombotic events or obstetric complications only or in asymptomatic carriers. An inflammatory second hit is required to increase the presence of β2GPI in vascular tissues, eventually triggering thrombosis. Post-transcriptional modifications of circulating β2GPI, different epitope specificities or diverse anti-β2GPI antibody-induced cell signaling have all been suggested to affect the clinical manifestations and/or to modulate their occurrence.

          Review

          The current clinical spectrum of anti-phospholipid syndrome

          Formal clinical classification criteria

          The revised classification criteria for anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS), commonly used as a diagnostic tools for the syndrome, include a history of venous or arterial thrombosis and/or of pregnancy morbidity in the presence of persistent anti-phospholipid antibody (aPL) positivity (Table 1) [1]. The most common vascular manifestations are deep venous thrombosis of lower limbs, pulmonary embolism and cerebral ischemic attack; early and late miscarriages are the major features of obstetric APS [1, 2]. In the catastrophic variant of APS, multiple small-vessel thrombotic events occur at different sites, in association with manifestations of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome [3].
          Table 1

          Revised classification criteria for anti-phospholipid syndrome[1]

          Clinical criteria

           

           Vascular thrombosis

          One or more episodes of arterial, venous or small vessel thrombosis in any tissue or organ (confirmed by objective validated criteria (imaging study or histopathology))

           Pregnancy complications

          One or more unexplained deaths of a morphologically normal fetus ≥10th gestational week

           

          One or more premature births (≤34th gestational week) of a morphologically normal neonate because of eclampsia, severe pre-eclampsia or placental insufficiency

           

          Three or more unexplained consecutive spontaneous abortions ≤9th gestational week (maternal anatomic and hormonal abnormalities and chromosomal abnormalities excluded)

          Laboratory criteria

           

           Lupus anticoagulant present in plasma

          Detected according to the guidelines of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (Scientific subcommittee on lupus anticoagulant/phospholipid-dependent antibodies)

           IgG and/or IgM anti-cardiolipin antibodies in serum of plasma

          At medium/high titer (≥40 GPL or MPL or ≥99th percentile) measured by standard ELISA

           IgG and/or IgM anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies in serum or plasma

          Titer ≥99th percentile measured by standard ELISA, according to recommended procedures

          At least one clinical and one laboratory criterion is mandatory. Autoantibodies have to be confirmed on two or more occasions at least 12 weeks apart. ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; GPL, IgG aPL units; Ig, immunoglobulin; MPL, IgM aPL units.

          Clinical manifestations not yet considered as classification criteria

          From the first definition of the disease, the clinical spectrum of APS has notably extended and many other manifestations have been described [4]. Thrombocytopenia, heart valve disease (valve thickening, vegetations and regurgitation), nephropathy, livedo reticularis and skin ulcers are relatively common features of APS but are not included in the classification criteria because of their low specificity (Table 2) [59].
          Table 2

          Anti-phospholipid syndrome clinical manifestations not yet considered as classification criteria

           

          Frequency

           

          Clinical manifestations

          PAPS

          APS-SLE

          Notes

           Thrombocytopenia

          20-25%

          30-40%

          Usually mild

          No protective effect on thrombotic risk

           Heart valve disease

          12-33%

          40%

          Possibly an additional risk for secondary thromboembolism

          Skin

             

           Livedo reticularis

          20-25%

          35%

          Original association with arterial thrombosis not confirmed in prospective studies

           Ulcers

          33%

          7-10%

          Pre-tibial area

          Frequently observed in catastrophic APS

           Superficial thrombophlebitis

          9%

          Reported in aPL-positive patients but their value still debated

          Kidney

           Renal artery stenosis

          26% of aPL + patients with uncontrolled hypertension

          Resulting in severe renovascular hypertension, renal infarcts

           APS nephropathy (renal small artery vasculopathy, involving both arterioles and glomerular capillaries)

          35%a

          39-67% a

          Association with pregnancy complications, extra-renal vascular thrombosis and higher risk of chronic renal failure among SLE patients

          Central nervous system

           Migraine/headache

          20%

          25%

          Controversial association with aPLs because of the high prevalence in the general population

           Epilepsy

          6-7%

          14%

          In many but not all cases secondary to ischemic events

          Conflicting data on relationship between aPLs and seizure in SLE

           MS-like disease

            

          No definite data regarding prevalence because of the difficult differential diagnosis

           Cognitive impairment

          38%

          48%

          Mostly involving attention and verbal fluency

           Dementia

          2.5-56%

          Resulting from chronic or recurrent ischemic events

           Ocular manifestations

          15-88%

          Amaurosis fugax as potential first sign of cerebral ischemia

          Retinal artery thrombosis vessels (arteries and veins) are relatively frequent and can lead to significant visual loss

           Transverse myelopathy

          1%

          Strong correlation with aPLs in SLE patients

           Pulmonary alveolar hemorrhage

          <1%

          Very poor prognosis

          aData from small series, with hypertension or signs suggestive of nephropathy. aPL, anti-phospholipid antibody; APS, anti-phospholipid syndrome; MS, multiple sclerosis; PAPS, primary anti-phospholipid syndrome; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

          In addition to thrombo-occlusive events in the cerebral circulation, a wide range of 'non-criteria' neurological manifestations have been associated with aPL, even though in some cases such association is still controversial. Examples include untreatable headache and migraine, epilepsy, chorea, ocular manifestations such as amaurosis fugax and retinal vessel thrombosis [10, 11]. A clinical syndrome and/or magnetic resonance imaging resembling multiple sclerosis has also been described in APS, raising the issue of a correct differential diagnosis [10].

          Persistent aPL positivity has been related to cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, even if recent studies in very large SLE cohorts have not confirmed such an association [11]. Although scant, studies in primary APS have reported a high predominance of cognitive deficits involving attention and verbal fluency [12, 13]. In addition, several authors reported the occurrence of chronic or recurrent ischemic events affecting small or large cerebral vessels and leading to multi-infarct dementia [1].

          Further manifestations affecting different organs or tissues have been described in APS patients. However, their association with aPL is still a matter of research mainly because of the anecdotal nature of the reports or the presence of other underlying disorders (diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, myocardial dysfunction, transverse myelopathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome and multiple mononeuropathy, sensorineural hearing loss or vertigo due to middle ear involvement, splinter hemorrhages and anetoderma [1]).

          Diagnostic laboratory tools

          Classification laboratory assays

          Laboratory criteria for formal APS classification currently include three aPL assays: one based on coagulation tests to reveal the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) and two solid phase assays to detect IgG/IgM antibodies targeting cardiolipin (CL)/beta2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) complexes or β2GPI alone (Table 1). Persistent medium/high positivity (12 weeks apart) of at least one of these tests is mandatory [1].

          Risk stratification

          According to the revised classification criteria, APS patients should be divided into four categories: category I includes patients with more than one positive test in any combination, while patients with a single positive test should be classified in category II (IIA if LA-positive, IIb if positive for antibodies against CL (aCLs), IIc if positive for anti-β2GPI antibodies) [1]. Triple positivity, defined by the presence of LA and medium/high titers of aCL and anti-β2GPI antibodies (above the 99th percentile), is the most predictive profile for clinical manifestations and recurrences despite conventional treatment [14, 15].

          There is growing evidence that patients in category II have a lesser risk to develop APS manifestations. LA was reported to be the most predictive test. LA can be mediated by both anti-β2GPI and anti-prothrombin (aPT) antibodies [16]. However, β2GPI-dependent LA was found to be a stronger risk factor for thrombosis and miscarriages than aPT-dependent LA [17, 18]. aCL positivity alone is not associated with an increased risk of thrombosis or pregnancy loss [16, 17, 19]. Data on anti-β2GPI antibodies are more controversial, maybe because the assay is less standardized [17]. Accordingly, Otomo and colleagues [20] have recently validated a scoring system to quantify the thrombotic or obstetric risk depending on aPL profiles.

          Clinical events are more robustly associated with aPLs of the IgG isotype, an isolated positivity for aCLs or anti-β2GPI antibodies of the IgM isotype being rarely detected in APS cohorts. Patients carrying both aCL/anti-β2GPI antibody isotypes display a higher risk of developing clinical events [21]. Some investigators have recently proposed that aCLs and anti-β2GPI IgA antibodies be included in the APS laboratory criteria. However, this is not supported by available data: the detection of a single IgA aPL positivity is more commonly associated with non-criteria manifestations, while IgA testing has not been shown to increase the diagnostic accuracy for APS [22]. Interestingly, this is not consistent with in vivo findings, which are supportive for a pathogenic role of IgA β2GPI-dependent aPLs in mediating thrombus formation [23].

          While it is well accepted that aPLs confer a prothrombotic susceptibility when at high titers, controversies have recently arisen about the clinical meaning of low-titer aPLs in pregnancy morbidity. A few studies have reported that women with persistent low-titer aPL positivity display an obstetric outcome comparable to the general population [17]. On the other hand, a recent study showed that low-titer aCL and anti-β2GPI antibody positivity (between the 95th and 99th percentiles) accurately identifies women with aPL-related pregnancy complications [24].

          Risk stratification for thrombotic events should also take into account the presence of traditional cardiovascular factors such as systemic inflammatory conditions (infectious or autoimmune), inherited thrombophilia, arterial hypertension, cigarette smoking and dyslipidemia [1]. Risk-factors for pregnancy failure include low complement levels, decreased platelet counts and a previous history of thrombosis and pregnancy failure [15].

          Non-classification laboratory assays

          Additional laboratory tests to detect aPLs have been reported: the most important 'non-classification' tests still deal with the two major phospholipid (PL)-binding proteins thought to represent the true antigenic targets for aPL: β2GPI and prothrombin (PT) [16]. However, other autoantigens have been described that are a matter of debate and research (Table 3).
          Table 3

          Future research requirements for the most promising non-classification laboratory assays

          Test

          Assay

          Future research needs

          Anti-DI antibodies

          ELISA

          Analytical and post-analytical standardization

          CIA

          Retrospective and prospective clinical validation

          Anti-PS/PT antibodies

          ELISA

          Analytical and post-analytical standardization

          Retrospective confirmatory studies and prospective clinical validation

          Anti-PE antibodies

          ELISA

          Analytical and post-analytical standardization

          Retrospective confirmatory studies and prospective clinical validation

          Annexin A5 resistance assay

          Two-step coagulation assay

          Analytical and post-analytical standardization

            

          Retrospective and prospective clinical validation

          CIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; DI, domain I; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PS/PT, phosphatidylserine-prothrombin.

          Anti-prothrombin antibodies

          To be antigenically recognized, human PT has to be either coated on activated plates or exposed to immobilized anionic phosphatidylserine (PS) via calcium ions. ELISAs to detect antibodies against the PS/PT complex (aPS/PT antibodies) identify a partially different autoantibody population from the assay using PT as the only antigen [25]. A contentious issue concerns the potential cross-reactivity between aPS/PT and anti-β2GPI antibodies; however, human anti-β2GPI monoclonals or affinity-purified anti-β2GPI polyclonal IgG antibodies obtained from a serum reacting with both β2GPI and PS/PT have been shown to react towards β2GPI only [26].

          In vitro experimental findings suggest that aPTs exert thrombogenic effects interfering with fluid phase components of coagulation and activating endothelial cells (ECs). Evidence from animal models is rather weak, however, mainly because of the lack of cross-reactivity of human aPTs with animal PT [25].

          The wide variability in epitope specificities and detection methods drives a disparity across available studies about the prevalence and clinical significance of aPTs. The prevalence of antibodies targeting PT depends also on selection of study populations: when considering solely individuals with LA, the positivity rate increases up to 85% and 88% for aPTs and aPS/PTs, respectively [25]. Similarly, the clinical significance of aPTs in both primary and secondary APS is still a matter of debate. Some studies showed that aPTs are an independent risk factor for either venous or arterial thrombosis, while others have failed to demonstrate such an association. On the other hand, most of the studies addressing the clinical significance of aPS/PTs have highlighted a significant association with aPL-associated manifestations, in particular venous thrombosis. Consistently, a systematic review did not find any correlation between aPTs and clinical events, while a more recent one found that aPS/PTs are a stronger risk factor for arterial and venous thrombosis than aPTs [27]. Much more controversial remains the association of aPTs and aPL-related pregnancy morbidity (Tables 4 and 5).
          Table 4

          Studies addressing prevalence and clinical association of aPT antibodies

          Reference

          Study population

          N

          Prevalence of anti-PT

          Clinical association

          Fleck et al. [28]

          LA positive subjects

          42

          74%

          NI

          Pengo et al. [29]

          APS patients

          22

          50%

          No association with thrombosis

          Horback et al. [30]

          SLE patients

          175

          38%

          Association with thrombosis

          (IgG and IgM)

          Puurunen et al. [31]

          SLE patients

          139

          34%

          Association with DVT

          Swadzba et al. [32]

          SLE patients with thrombotic event

          127

          28%

          No association with thrombosis (IgG and IgM)

          31

          Galli et al. [33]

          aPL-positive subjects

          59

          58%

          No association with thrombosis

          IgG 35.6%

          IgM 37.3%

          Bertolaccini et al. [34]

          SLE patients

          207

          28%

          No association with APS clinical manifestations

          Forastiero et al. [35]

          APS patients

          97

          25%

          Association with thrombosis

          aPL-negative patients with thrombotic events

          83

          Munoz-Rodriguez et al. [36]

          APS patients

          70

          57%

          Association with arterial thrombosis (IgG only)

          SLE patients

          107

          40%

          Atsumi et al. [37]

          Patients with autoimmune diseases

          265

          IgG: PAPS 15%; SLE APS 42%; SLE no APS 20%

          No association with APS

          IgM: PAPS 5%; SLE APS 4%; SLE No APS 6%

          Galli et al. [38]

          LA-positive patients

          72

          85%

          No association with APS

          Nojima et al. [39]

          SLE patients

          124

          IgG 52.4%

          Association with venous thromboembolism (only aPT IgG + LA)

          IgM 21%

          Nojima et al. [40]

          SLE patients

          168

          56%

          Association with arterial thrombosis

          Simmelink et al. [41]

          LA-positive patients

          46

          30%

          Association with thrombosis

          LA-positive patients with SLE

          29

          LA-positive subjects: 70%

          LA-negative patients

          38

           

          LA-negative patients with SLE

          36

          Salcido-Ochoa et al. [42]

          APS patients

          38

          IgG 26%, IgM 11%

          Association with thrombosis

          SLE patients

          466

          IgG 20%, IgM 33%

          Von Landenberg et al. [43]

          APS patients

          170

          IgG 61.7%

          Association with pregnancy loss (IgG only)

          (57% PAPS; 43% SAPS)

           

          IgM 57.6%

          IgA 7%

          Musial et al. [44]

          APS patients

          22

          IgG 45.4%, IgM 50%

          No association with thrombosis

          SLE patients

          160

          IgG 18.1%, IgM 18.7%

          SLE-like patients

          22

          IgG 31.8%, IgM 27.3%

          Ishikura et al. [45]

          SLE patients

          22

          18.2%

          Association with venous thrombosis

          Patients with

            

          DVT/PTE

          48

          IgG 29%, IgM 8.3%

          Stroke

          30

          IgG 16.7%, IgM 6.7%

          Koskenmies et al. [46]

          SLE patients

          292

          20%

          Association with arterial thrombosis

          Bertolaccini et al. [47]

          SLE patients

          212

          31%

          Association with venous/arterial thrombosis (IgG only)

          IgG-only 24.5%

          IgM-only 5%

          Bizzarro et al. [48]

          aCL-positive APS patients

          25

          60%

          Association with thrombosis (IgG only)

          SLE-APS patients

          23

          45%

          SLE-no APS patients

          66

          Forastiero et al. [49]

          aPL-positive subjects (LA/aCL)

          194

          46%

          Association with thrombosis (IgG only)

          IgG 36%

          IgM 23%

          Gould et al. [50]

          SLE patients

          100

          20%

          No association with thrombosis

          Tsutumi et al. [51]

          SLE patients

          139

          25%

          Association with thrombosis

          Nojima et al. [52]

          SLE patients

          175

          54.3%

          No association with thrombosis

          Bizzaro et al. [53]

          SLE patients

          101

          IgG 13.9%

          Association with thrombosis (IgG only)

          IgM 9%

          IgG + IgM 3%

          Sailer et al. [54]

          LA-positive subjects

          79

           

          No association with thrombosis

          With thrombosis

          50

          72% (assay I), 50% (assay II)

          Without thrombosis

          29

          66% (assay I), 41% (assay II)

          Bardin et al. [55]

          APS patients

          62

          42%

          NI

          Jakowski et al. [56]

          APS patients

          58

          22%

          No association with pregnancy loss

          Women with recurrent pregnancy loss

          66

          12%

          Szodoray et al. [57]

          SLE patients

          85

          IgG 18%, IgM 0

          NI

          Pengo et al. [58]

          LA-positive subjects

          231

          IgG 26%

          No association with APS clinical events

          IgM 27%

          Marozio et al. [59]

          Obstetric APS patients

          187

          29.4%

          Association with severe pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, intra-uterine fetal death

          IgG 25.8%

          IgM 1.8%

          IgG + IgM: 1.8%

          Hoxha et al. [60]

          PAPS patients

          158

          IgG 23.5%, IgM 4.9%

          Association with thrombosis and obstetric manifestations (IgG only)

          Thrombotic APS

          56

          IgG 10.7%, IgM 1.8%

          Obstetric APS

          102

           

          Sater et al. [61]

          Women with recurrent miscarriages

          277

          IgM 12%

          No association with pregnancy loss

          aCL, anti-cardiolipin antibody; aPL, anti-phospholipid antibody; APS, anti-phospholipid syndrome; aPT, anti-prothrombin antibody; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; HELLP, hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelet count; Ig, immunoglobulin; LA, lupus anticoagulant; NI, not investigated; PAPS, primary anti-phospholipid syndrome; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; SAPS, secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

          Table 5

          Studies addressing prevalence and clinical association of aPS/PT antibodies

          Reference

          Studied population

          N

          Prevalence of anti-PS/PT

          Clinical association

          Galli et al. [33]

          aPL-positive subjects

          59

          90%

          No association with thrombosis

          IgG 75%

          IgM 66%

          Atsumi et al. [37]

          Patients with autoimmune diseases

          265

          IgG: PAPS 19%; SLE APS 63%; SLE-no APS 13%

          Association with APS

          IgM: PAPS 10%; SLE APS 29%; SLE-no APS 4%

          Nojima et al. [62]

          SLE patients

          126

          38.1%

          No association with stroke

          Bertolaccini et al. [47]

          SLE patients

          212

          31%

          No association with thrombosis

          IgG-only 16%

          IgM-only 6%

          Tsutumi et al. [51]

          SLE patients

          139

          21%

          Association with thrombosis

          Nojima et al. [52]

          SLE patients

          175

          43.4%

          Association with thrombosis

          Bardin et al. [55]

          APS patients

          62

          55%

          NI

          Jakowski [56]

          APS patients

          58

          44%

          No association with pregnancy loss

          Women with RPL

          66

          1%

          Atsumi et al. [63]

          Patients with autoimmune diseases

          441

          18.3%

          Association with APS

          PAPS

          84

          39%

          SLE-APS

          68

          47%

          SLE-no APS

          136

          10%

          Rheumatoid arthritis

          46

          0

          Sjogren syndrome

          36

          0

          Other

          71

          4%

          Žigon et al. [64]

          APS patients

          100

          59%

          NI

          Vlagea et al. [65]

          PAPS patients

          98

          51%, IgG 35.7%, IgM 32.6%

          Association with venous thrombosis and obstetric morbidity

          SAPS patients

          45

          53.3%, IgG 40%, IgM 31.1%

          aPL-positive subjects

          57

          38.6%, IgG 21.1%, IgM 26.3%

          Pregnolato et al. [26]

          APS patients

          80

          81.3%

          Association with venous thrombosis (IgG only)

          aPL, anti-phospholipid antibody; APS, anti-phospholipid syndrome; aPS, anti-phosphatidylserine antibodies; Ig, immunoglobulin; NI, not investigated; PAPS, primary anti-phospholipid syndrome; PS, phosphatidylserine; PT, prothrombin; RPL, recurrent pregnancy loss; SAPS, secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

          aPS/PTs have been proposed as a surrogate test for LA and as an additional serological marker of APS, to be performed with other aPL tests to improve diagnosis. Noteworthy, LA together with aβ2GPI and aPS/PT antibodies has recently been identified to display the best diagnostic accuracy for both vascular and obstetric APS among 23 possible combinations of six aPL assays (LA, aCLs, anti-β2GPI antibodies, aPTs, aPS/PTs, and anti-phosphatidylethanolamine antibodies (aPEs)) [66]. However, the bulk of evidence is still not solid enough to recommend routine testing for antibodies targeting PT as shown by a summary of all studies available in the literature (Tables 4 and 5).

          New assays for anti-β2GPI antibodies: the anti-domain antibodies

          β2GPI is a relatively large plasma glycoprotein of 70 kDa with good immunogenic properties. Thus, it is not surprising that APS patients can produce antibodies against several epitopes of the molecule as demonstrated using different experimental approaches. Although the epitope specificity using linear peptides was not originally reported to be associated with specific clinical manifestations of the syndrome, more recently a close association between anti-domain (D)I reactivity and vascular events has been suggested [67].

          The reactivity against DI of β2GPI was described for the first time in 2002 but its importance was revealed when a two-step technique was used to characterize β2GPI-dependent aPLs [68]. Specifically, β2GPI coated on hydrophilic but not hydrophobic microtiter plates displays conformational changes that expose DI to the surface, making it more accessible for autoantibody binding. Anti-β2GPI antibodies with DI specificity were found in the majority of APS patients and were significantly associated with LA and vascular thrombosis (mostly venous) [69]. Only in a subsequent multicenter study were they also found to be associated with the obstetric manifestations of the syndrome, although to a lesser extent than with thrombosis [70]. However, some data from the multicenter study are controversial. In fact, no correlation between LA and miscarriages was found, in contrast to several previous publications and the known clinical LA predictive value for miscarriages [17]. High levels of antibodies with comparable specificity and detected by a research ELISA kit have been recently associated with an increased risk for thrombotic events in a prospective cohort of SLE or aPL patients by the same group [71].

          Recent studies have demonstrated that patients with multiple positive test results (that is, LA, aCLs and anti-β2GPI autoantibodies particularly of the IgG isotype) display a much higher risk for developing clinical complications [17]. In line with the hypothesis that anti-DI IgG may represent a more predictive aPL profile, these patients tend to have a higher prevalence and higher titers of anti-β2GPI-DI antibodies [72, 73].

          Anti-β2GPI-DI IgG antibodies have been found as the most prevalent antibodies not only in primary APS with thrombosis but also in primary APS with pure obstetric disease. Comparable positivity rates were detectable in patients with SLE or undifferentiated connective tissue diseases, while antibodies against DIV or DV were less frequent in the same populations [73]. aPL positive asymptomatic carriers display a less polarized profile, suggesting that anti-DI antibodies may cluster in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases [73]. Interestingly, the two techniques for anti-DI antibodies used in the study (that is, standard ELISA and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)) have been reported to display the same specificity but different sensitivities [74].

          Additional epidemiological studies apparently support the diagnostic/predictive value of anti-DI antibodies. IgG reacting with β2GPI in sera from aPL-positive asymptomatic carriers, individuals with leprosy or children with atopic dermatitis have been shown to preferentially recognize epitopes on DIV or DV [68]. Recent studies have suggested that the ratio between anti-β2GPI-DI and anti-β2GPI-DIV/V IgG antibody reactivities can provide important information to discriminate between anti-β2GPI antibodies linked to an autoimmune disease such as APS and antibodies occurring in association with other pathologies [73]. If confirmed in larger studies, this finding would suggest the use of tests for antibodies against the different domains to discriminate between predictive versus non predictive anti-β2GPI antibodies.

          In any case, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions on the diagnostic and prognostic value of anti-DI antibodies at this stage. The high prevalence of anti-DI IgG antibodies in patients with medium-high titers of aPLs and multiple positivities in the formal diagnostic tests supports the role of DI as the immunodominant epitope of β2GPI. However, a small but consistent proportion of full-blown APS patients have autoantibodies reacting with different epitopes, suggesting that the assay for the whole molecule cannot be substituted yet [73]. The discrepancies in the clinical associations can be related to the different methodologies used. Besides the two-step assay, three ELISA studies and a CIA employing different DI molecules or peptides have been reported [74, 75]. Although preliminary data seem to indicate that the solid phase assays by two different ELISAs or CIA are comparable, there is no information on the comparison with the two-step assay and the additional ELISAs. Confirmatory studies using multi-center setups and larger prospective patient cohorts are needed to confirm the data.

          The fact that the anti-DI antibodies are directed against the immunodominant epitope of β2GPI is supported also by pathogenic studies in animal models. Passive infusion of a synthetic antigenic target peptide DI was shown to protect naïve mice from the thrombogenic effects of human polyclonal aPL IgG fractions [76]. Although the inhibition of thrombus formation as well as expression of adhesion molecule on aortic ECs and tissue factor expression on macrophages were not complete, this finding was thought to represent a proof of concept of the pathogenic role of anti-DI antibodies [76]. More recently, a human monoclonal IgG, specifically reacting with DI, was shown to induce clotting and fetal loss in naïve mice, offering the first direct demonstration of the pathogenic effect of anti-DI antibodies [77]. Interestingly, the anti-DI monoclonal induced clotting via complement activation and only after the concomitant administration of small amounts of lipopolysaccharide. This finding is in line with previous results obtained using polyclonal IgG anti-β2GPI fractions from APS patients and further supports the potential pathogenic role of anti-DI antibodies.

          The main epitope of DI has been suggested to be a cryptic and conformation-dependent structure involving different residues located in the proximity of the junction between DI and DII. Fine epitope mapping using short synthetic peptide fragments and mutation experiments have demonstrated that the main epitope on β2GPI-DI is located around amino acid 40 of the molecule with R39-R43 representing the key constituent of the discontinuous epitope [68]. DI of β2GPI is usually hidden, being linked with DII in the circular form of the molecule, the most abundant variant in the circulation. After interaction with anionic PL monolayers or when bound to endotoxin, β2GPI is opened and DI can be presented to the afferent limb of the immune system [69]. In other words, it could be speculated that, unlike the other domains, which can induce tolerance at high antigen concentrations, DI does not. So, even a small amount of DI presented to the immune system can break the tolerance and easily induce specific antibodies.

          Antibodies against phosphatidylethanolamine

          Phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) is a zwitterionic PL, mainly located in the inner leaflets of biological membranes. Subpopulations of aPE bind to high molecular weight kininogen, leading to the formation of antibody-PE-kininogen trimolecular complexes that enhance thrombin-induced platelet aggregation. PE promotes thrombosis by activating factor X and PT, and works as an anticoagulant potentiating activated protein C activity. The finding that PE in the hexagonal phase inhibits the prolongation of clotting time led to the hypothesis that aPEs might be responsible for the LA phenomenon, despite a lack of a significant association between the two assays [78]. A clear in vivo demonstration of the pathogenic role of aPEs in mediating vascular and obstetric events is lacking.

          Antibodies against PE have been described in up to 43% of APS patients, a higher positivity rate compared to healthy controls [78]. In particular, aPE prevalence among women experiencing recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) has been reported to range between 23 and 31.7% [79]. Overall, available evidence on the clinical role of aPEs is inconsistent and comes from a limited number of studies, being flawed by the small sample size and poor ELISA standardization [78]. Therefore, aPE testing is currently not recommended, with these autoantibodies not yielding increased accuracy in diagnosing APS. Nevertheless, some authors have proposed aPEs as serological markers of seronegative APS, a debated nosological entity characterized by a clinical picture highly suggestive of APS despite persistent aPL undetectability. In patients with otherwise unexplained thrombotic events, the prevalence of aPEs was 18% when detected by ELISA, rising to 30.5% when tested using thin-layer immunostaining [78, 80]. Further, in a multicenter study on 270 thrombotic patients, 63% of 40 aPE-positive subjects had no additional aPL laboratory tests [78].

          Antibodies against anionic phospholipids other than cardiolipin

          The diagnostic and prognostic roles of several autoantibodies targeting negatively charged PLs other than CL have been evaluated, though not extensively, in the setting of APS.

          PS, phosphatidylinositol and phosphatidic acid, three anionic PLs found in the inner and outer membranes of most cells, are among the best-characterized antigens. Noteworthy, in the 1980s aCLs were shown to broadly cross-react with antibodies targeting both PS and phosphatidylinositol. The cross-reactivity was mostly supported by the recognition of the complex of β2GPI with the different anionic PLs. In fact, being a cationic molecule, β2GPI binds efficiently to negatively charged PLs. Hence, the largest part of the cross-reactivity is actually due to the same family of autoantibodies, namely those reacting with β2GPI [81]. As a whole, testing for antibodies against PS (aPSs), phosphatidylinositol and phosphatidic acid does not improve the likelihood of diagnosing APS compared with criteria tests, being therefore not recommended in international guidelines [1].

          Nevertheless, aPSs were reported to be promising, with a particular relevance in obstetric APS. In a study on 872 women with RPL, aPSs were the only detectable aPLs in 3.6% of subjects [82]. However, contradictory data have recently emerged: in one study, aPSs were not related to RPL, while other authors identified IgG but not IgM aPSs as associated with RPL. On the other hand, there is no evidence for an association between aPSs and vascular events [82].

          Two murine monoclonal antibodies targeting PS (one reacting with both CL and PS and one with PS only) inhibited the development and invasion by trophoblasts, decreased human chorionic gonadotropin levels and retarded syncytiotrophoblast formation. Unfortunately there is no information whether they recognized β2GPI or not [82]. Conversely, the β2GPI dependence was shown to be important in another study in which active immunization with β2GPI-dependent polyclonal human IgG but not IgM aPSs induced fetal resorption via the production of murine β2GPI-dependent IgG aPSs [83]. Discrepancies across available studies justify why APS criteria do not include aPS assays among laboratory tools.

          A novel ELISA kit detecting antibodies against a mixture of negatively charged PLs comprising PS, phosphatidic acid and β2GPI (APhL) has been recently introduced to the market. This commercial immunoassay has been suggested to overcome the issue of the low specificity of aCLs, which are frequently detected in infectious conditions such as chronic hepatitis C, leprosy, syphilis, and parvovirus B19 infection among others. Furthermore, the APhL assay displays higher positive and negative predictive values for APS diagnosis compared to two commercially available aCL assays [84]. In a cohort of 158 SLE patients, multivariate analysis revealed an association between APhL and thrombotic events, particularly arterial [85].

          Antibodies against vimentin

          Proteomic analysis of endothelial-surface membrane proteins in sera from patients with so-called seronegative APS led to the identification of vimentin as a strong autoantigen. Vimentin, a ubiquitous cytoskeleton intermediate filament protein, has been shown to bind CL in vitro. In one cohort of patients, antibodies against vimentin/CL were described in 55% of seronegative APS and 92% of full-blown APS patients [82]. However, antibodies against vimentin/CL have also been reported in aPL-negative SLE and rheumatoid arthritis subjects without any clinical manifestation suggestive of APS, thus weakening the specificity of such a diagnostic marker [82].

          Annexins: annexin A5 resistance assay and autoantibodies against annexin A5 and annexin A2

          Annexins are a family of ubiquitous calcium-dependent PL-binding proteins. Annexin (Ann)A5 is a potent anticoagulant protein mainly found in trophoblasts and vascular ECs. Upon binding to anionic PLs, it undergoes oligomerization to form a protective shield against coagulation enzymes. β2GPI-dependent aPLs have been shown to interfere with the protective binding of AnnA5 to the endothelium, hence leading to thrombosis. A novel two-stage coagulation assay to establish the AnnA5 resistance has been developed; patients with coagulation time lower than the reference are considered AnnA5-resistant [81, 82]. Data from five studies revealed that 52% of APS patients were AnnA5-resistant, in comparison with 2 to 5% of controls and seronegative subjects [81]. Resistance to AnnA5 anticoagulant activity was found to inversely correlate with titers of IgG antibodies targeting DI in both thrombotic and obstetric APS [81]. Future studies will assess whether this functional test may allow the identification of specific subsets of pathogenic anti-β2GPI antibodies. The clinical significance of serum autoantibodies against AnnA5 has also been investigated: in one study, no association was reported between these autoantibodies and vascular events, while inconsistencies emerged across different studies in obstetric APS [81, 82].

          AnnA2, a cofactor for plasmin generation and cell-surface localization of fibrinolytic activity, has been identified as a receptor mediating β2GPI binding to ECs. Autoantibodies against AnnA2 have been demonstrated to exert a prothrombotic activity by activating ECs, inducing tissue factor expression and blocking tissue plasminogen activator-induced plasminogen activation in vitro. A high prevalence of AnnA2 antibodies has been described in patients with APS, but also in some other autoimmune conditions, thus lowering the specificity of this biomarker [86].

          More than just autoantibodies

          The presence of aPLs, even if persistent over time, does not explain the full spectrum of APS. For example, a comparable aPL profile can be associated with vascular but not obstetric manifestations and, in some cases, women with APS and previous miscarriages do not display any vascular events [1, 4]. In other words, autoantibodies with the same autoantigen specificity and titers have been associated with different clinical pictures and found to support diverse pathogenic mechanisms in experimental models [16].

          β2GPI-dependent aPL IgG fractions were reported to affect signaling pathways in monocytes and trophoblast cell lines in different ways depending on whether they were obtained from patients with vascular thrombosis or from women with aPL-related miscarriages only [87]. Hence, the eventual clinical picture has been linked to autoantibodies with the same antigen specificity but different biological effects: induction of a pro-thrombotic and inflammatory phenotype in monocytes by β2GPI-dependent IgG antibodies from vascular APS patients and inhibition of trophoblast development by β2GPI-dependent IgG antibodies from obstetric APS patients [87].

          It is still unclear whether these different effects can be related to diverse IgG epitope specificity. The use of these IgG fractions in animal models of aPL-induced thrombosis or fetal loss could further support such an elegant hypothesis in vivo.

          Vascular and the obstetric APS have been suggested to represent two different variants of the syndrome [88]. The most striking difference is represented by the need of a second hit for triggering thrombosis in naive animals passively infused with human aPLs, while this is not apparently required in models of fetal loss. In fact, the infusion of aPL IgG fractions in pregnant naive mice can itself induce fetal loss and growth retardation. It has been recently demonstrated that β2GPI displays a peculiar tissue distribution in resting naive animals, being detectable only at the level of uterine endothelium but not in other vascularized tissues [89]. So the presence of anti-β2GPI antibodies can affect pregnancy outcome in resting animals but it does not trigger any vascular thrombosis. Animal pre-treatment with small amounts of lipopolysaccharide may induce the presence of β2GPI in vascularized tissues and only then can aPLs react with the target, activate the complement cascade and induce thrombosis [89]. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the modulation of β2GPI tissue distribution by inflammatory stimuli may represent an additional variable able to affect the ability of the antibodies to induce the vascular manifestations of the syndrome [16, 89].

          Post-transcriptional modifications of β2GPI, such as oxidation, have been shown to affect autoantibody binding [90]. For example, autoimmune anti-β2GPI IgG antibodies react more strongly with plates coated with oxidized β2GPI than antibodies obtained after active immunization in naive animals. Moreover, plasma levels of oxidized β2GPI have been found to be increased in sera of APS patients. Altogether, these findings suggest that increased levels of post-transcriptionally modified β2GPI and the higher antibody reactivity against the modified molecule may affect the biological consequences of aPL binding [90].

          In addition, aPLs can be detected in so-called asymptomatic positive carriers who display the persistent presence of medium to high levels of antibodies but in whom no clinical events can be documented. It has been suggested that the second hit cannot take place in these subjects or that their antibodies display different antigen specificity. In line with the last hypothesis, the epitope specificity of the β2GPI-dependent IgG antibodies in these subjects was found to be more frequently directed against DIV or DV than against DI as in full-blown APS sera [68, 74]. Since the DI epitope is available for the autoantibodies on the open molecule only (for example, when bound to anionic PL monolayers), it has been hypothesized that only these antibodies may be pathogenic. Figure 1 presents a schematic view of the above discussed pathogenic mechanisms.
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Far4549/MediaObjects/13075_2014_4167_Fig1_HTML.jpg
          Figure 1

          Schematic views of anti-phospholipid syndrome pathogenic mechanisms. (a) Vascular anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS). Anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPLs) may target different cell types and soluble coagulations factors. Pathogenic aPLs are beta2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI)-dependent and activate complement after an inflammatory stimulus (second hit). Additional variables may affect aPL pathogenicity, such as the ability of antibodies to modulate different cell signaling and to display diverse epitope specificity and reactivity with modified β2GPI. (b) Obstetric APS. β2GPI-dependent aPLs may target trophoblast and decidual cells. β2GPI can be present at the uterine level even in non-pregnant animals and it binds to trophoblast cells (syncytiotrophoblasts). A second hit is not apparently required, and female hormones or the pregnancy itself may be the equivalent of the second hit described for the vascular manifestations. As in vascular APS, the ability of antibodies to modulate different cell signaling and to display diverse epitope specificity and reactivity with modified β2GPI may be additional variables that can affect aPL pathogenicity. APC, activated protein C; C?S, Protein C/S; FII, Factor II; FIXa, Factor IXa, FVIIa, Factor VIIa; FXa, Factor Xa; PT, prothrombin; TF, tissue factor; tPA, tissue plasminogen factor.

          Conclusion

          The clinical spectrum of APS is more polymorphic than it was thought in the past, making the syndrome much closer to a systemic autoimmune disease. Additional laboratory tests have been proposed in order to improve diagnostic and predictive power, but promising findings have been reported only for anti-PS/PT and anti-DI antibodies.

          aPLs play a major pathogenic role in inducing clinical manifestations; however, there is growing evidence that inflammatory stimuli are pivotal for triggering thrombosis, while tissue distribution of the major antigenic target (β2GPI) as well as its post-transcriptional modifications or the fine epitope specificity of anti-β2GPI antibodies may influence the type of clinical events or even their occurrence.

          Abbreviations

          β2GPI: 

          beta2 glycoprotein I

          aCL: 

          Anti-cardiolipin antibody

          Ann: 

          Annexin

          aPE: 

          Anti-phosphatidylethanolamine antibody

          aPL: 

          Anti-phospholipid antibody

          aPS: 

          Anti-phosphatidylserine antibody

          APS: 

          Anti-phospholipid syndrome

          aPT: 

          Anti-prothrombin antibody

          CIA: 

          Chemiluminescence immunoassay

          CL: 

          Cardiolipin

          D: 

          Domain

          EC: 

          Endothelial cell

          ELISA: 

          Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

          Ig: 

          Immunoglobulin

          LA: 

          Lupus anticoagulant

          PE: 

          Phosphatidylethanolamine

          PL: 

          Phospholipid

          PS: 

          Phosphatidylserine

          PT: 

          Prothrombin

          RPL: 

          Recurrent pregnancy loss

          SLE: 

          Systemic lupus erythematosus.

          Declarations

          Acknowledgements

          CBC is supported by a Research Grant co-financed by University of Milan and Dote Ricerca: FSE, Regione Lombardia.

          Authors’ Affiliations

          (1)
          Division of Rheumatology - Istituto Ortopedico Gaetano Pini, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan
          (2)
          Istituto Auxologico Italiano

          References

          1. Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, Branch DW, Brey RL, Cervera R, Derksen RH, DE Groot PG, Koike T, Meroni PL, Reber G, Shoenfeld Y, Tincani A, Vlachoyiannopoulos PG, Krilis SA: International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost 2006, 4:295–306.PubMedView Article
          2. Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Shoenfeld Y, Camps MT, Jacobsen S, Kiss E, Zeher MM, Tincani A, Kontopoulou-Griva I, Galeazzi M, Bellisai F, Meroni PL, Derksen RH, de Groot PG, Gromnica-Ihle E, Baleva M, Mosca M, Bombardieri S, Houssiau F, Gris JC, Quéré I, Hachulla E, Vasconcelos C, Roch B, Fernández-Nebro A, Piette JC, Espinosa G, Bucciarelli S, Pisoni CN, Bertolaccini ML, et al.: Euro-Phospholipid Project Group (European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibodies). Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 5-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:1428–1432.PubMedView Article
          3. Cervera R, Espinosa G: Update on the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome and the 'CAPS Registry'. Semin Thromb Hemost 2012, 38:333–338.PubMedView Article
          4. Shoenfeld Y, Meroni PL, Toubi E: Antiphospholipid syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus: are they separate entities or just clinical presentations on the same scale? Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009, 21:495–500.PubMedView Article
          5. Erkan D, Lockshin MD: Non-criteria manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome. Lupus 2010, 19:424–427.PubMedView Article
          6. Atsumi T, Furukawa S, Amengual O, Koike T: Antiphospholipid antibody associated thrombocytopenia and the paradoxical risk of thrombosis. Lupus 2005, 14:499–504.PubMedView Article
          7. Frances C: Dermatological manifestations of Hughes' antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. Lupus 2010, 19:1071–1077.PubMedView Article
          8. Zuily S, Huttin O, Mohamed S, Marie PY, Selton-Suty C, Wahl D: Valvular heart disease in antiphospholipid syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2013, 15:320.PubMedView Article
          9. Tektonidou MG: Renal involvement in the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)-APS nephropathy. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2009, 36:131–140.PubMedView Article
          10. Brey RL, Muscal E, Chapman J: Antiphospholipid antibodies and the brain: a consensus report. Lupus 2011, 20:153–157.PubMedView Article
          11. Hanly JG, Urowitz MB, Su L, Gordon C, Bae SC, Sanchez-Guerrero J, Romero-Diaz J, Wallace DJ, Clarke AE, Ginzler E, Merrill JT, Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Petri M, Fortin PR, Gladman D, Bruce IN, Steinsson K, Dooley M, Khamashta MA, Alarcón GS, Fessler BJ, Ramsey-Goldman R, Manzi S, Zoma AA, Sturfelt GK, Nived O, Aranow C, Mackay M, Ramos-Casals M, et al.: Seizure disorders in systemic lupus erythematosus results from an international, prospective, inception cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012, 71:1502–1509.PubMedView Article
          12. Tektonidou MG, Varsou N, Kotoulas G, Antoniou A, Moutsopoulos HM: Cognitive deficits in patients with antiphopholipid syndrome. Arch Intern Med 2006, 166:2278–2284.PubMedView Article
          13. Gerosa M, Poletti B, Pregnolato F, Lafronza A, Silani V, Meroni PL, Riboldi P: Antiphospholipid syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus: what’s new about cognitive impairment. J Neurol 2009, 256:S190.
          14. Pengo V, Ruffatti A, Legnani C, Testa S, Fierro T, Marongiu F, De Micheli V, Gresele P, Tonello M, Ghirarduzzi A, Bison E, Denas G, Banzato A, Padayattil Jose S, Iliceto S: Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: a multicenter prospective study. Blood 2011, 118:4714–4718.PubMedView Article
          15. Ruffatti A, Tonello M, Visentin MS, Bontadi A, Hoxha A, De Carolis S, Botta A, Salvi S, Nuzzo M, Rovere-Querini P, Canti V, Mosca M, Mitic G, Bertero MT, Pengo V, Boffa MC, Tincani A: Risk factors for pregnancy failure in patients with anti-phospholipid syndrome treated with conventional therapies: a multicentre case–control study. Rheumatology 2011, 50:1684–1689.PubMedView Article
          16. Meroni PL, Borghi MO, Raschi E, Tedesco F: Pathogenesis of antiphospholipid syndrome: understanding the antibodies. Nat Rev Rheum 2011, 7:330–339.View Article
          17. Pengo V, Banzato A, Denas G, Jose SP, Bison E, Hoxha A, Ruffatti A: Correct laboratory approach to APS diagnosis and monitoring. Autoimmun Rev 2013, 12:832–834.PubMedView Article
          18. De Laat HB, Derksen RHWM, Urbanus RT, Roest M, de Groot PG: B2-glycoprotein I dependent lupus anticoagulant highly correlates with thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood 2004, 104:3598–3602.PubMedView Article
          19. Ruffatti A, Del Ross T, Ciprian M, Bertero MT, Sciascia S, Scarpato S, Montecucco C, Rossi S, Caramaschi P, Biasi D, Doria A, Rampudda M, Monica N, Fischetti F, Picillo U, Brucato A, Salvan E, Vittorio P, Meroni P, Tincani A, Antiphospholipid Syndrome Study Group of Italian Society of Rheumatology: Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011, 70:1083–1086.PubMedView Article
          20. Otomo K, Atsumi T, Amengual O, Fujieda Y, Kato M, Oku K, Horita T, Yasuda S, Koike T: Efficacy of the antiphospholipid score for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome and its predictive value for thrombotic events. Arthritis Rheum 2012, 64:504–512.PubMedView Article
          21. Devreese KM: Antiphospholipid antibodies: evaluation of the thrombotic risk. Thrombosis Res 2012, 130:S37-S40.View Article
          22. Meijide H, Sciascia S, Sanna G, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML: The clinical relevance of IgA anticardiolipin and IgA anti-β 2 glycoprotein I antiphospholipid antibodies. A systematic review. Autoimmun Rev 2013, 12:421–425.PubMedView Article
          23. Murthy V, Willis R, Romay-Penabad Z, Ruiz-Limon P, Martinez-Martinez LA, Jatwani S, Jajoria P, Seif A, Alarcon GS, Papalardo E, Liu J, Vilà LM, McGwin G, McNearney TA, Maganti R, Sunkureddi P, Parekh T, Tarantino M, Akhter E, Fang H, Gonzalez EB, Binder WB, Norman GL, Shums Z, Teodorescu M, Reveille JD, Petri M, Pierangeli SP: Value of isolated IgA anti-β 2 -glycoprotein I positivity in the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:3186–3193.PubMedView Article
          24. Gardiner C, Hills J, Machin SJ, Cohen H: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome in routine clinical practice. Lupus 2013, 22:18–25.PubMedView Article
          25. Pregnolato F, Chighizola C: Phospholipid autoantibodies (non-anticardiolipin)-anti-prothrombin antibodies. In The Autoantibodies. 3rd edition. Edited by: Shoenfeld Y, Gershwin E, Meroni PL. New York: Elsevier; 2014:741–749.View Article
          26. Pregnolato F, Chighizola CB, Encabo S, Shums Z, Norman GL, Tripodi A, Chantarangkul V, Bertero T, De Micheli V, Borghi MO, Meroni PL: Anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies: an additional diagnostic marker for APS? Immunologic Res 2013, 56:432–438.View Article
          27. Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, Roccatello D, Khamashta M, Bertolaccini ML: Anti-prothrombin (aPT) and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) antibodies and the risk of thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review. Thromb Haemost 2014, 111:354–364.PubMedView Article
          28. Fleck RA, Rapaport SI, Rao LVM: Anti-prothrombin antibodies and the lupus anticoagulant. Blood 1988, 72:512–519.PubMed
          29. Pengo V, Biasiolo A, Brocco T, Tonetto S, Ruffatti A: Autoantibodies to phospholipid-binding plasma proteins in patients with thrombosis and phospholipid-reactive antibodies. Thromb Haemost 1996, 75:721–724.PubMed
          30. Horback DA, van Oort E, Donders RC, Derksen RH, de Groot PG: Lupus anticoagulant is the strongest risk factor for both venous and arterial thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Comparison between different assays for the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies. Thromb Haemost 1996, 76:916–924.
          31. Puurunen M, Vaarala O, Julkunen H, Aho K, Palosuo T: Antibodies to phospholipid-binding plasma proteins and occurrence of thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996, 80:16–22.PubMedView Article
          32. Swadzba J, De Clerck LS, Stevens WJ, Bridts CH, van Cotthem KA, Musial J, Jankowski M, Szczeklik A: Anti-cardiolipin, antibeta2glycoprotein I, antiprothrombin antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with a history of thrombosis. J Rheumatol 1997, 24:1710–1715.PubMed
          33. Galli M, Beretta G, Daldossi M, Bevers EM, Barbui T: Different anticoagulant and immunological properties of anti-prothrombin antibodies in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Thromb Haemost 1997, 77:486–491.PubMed
          34. Bertolaccini ML, Atsumi T, Khamashta MA, Amengual O, Hughes GR: Autoantibodies to human prothrombin and clinical manifestations in 207 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1998, 25:1104–1108.PubMed
          35. Forastiero R, Martinuzzo ME, Adamczuk Y, Carreras LO: Occurrence of anti-prothrombin antibodies and anti-beta2glycoprotein I antibodies in patients with a history of thrombosis. J Lab Clin Med 1999, 134:610–615.PubMedView Article
          36. Munoz-Rodriguez FJ, Reverter JC, Font J, Tàssies D, Cervera R, Espinosa G, Carmona F, Balasch J, Ordinas A, Ingelmo M: Prevalence and clinical significance of anti-prothrombin antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or with primary anti-phospholipid syndrome. Haematologica 2000, 85:632–637.PubMed
          37. Atsumi T, Ieko M, Bertolaccini ML, Ichikawa K, Tsutsumi A, Matsuura E, Koike T: Association of autoantibodies against the phosphatidylserine-prothrobin complex with manifestations of the antiphospholipid syndrome and in the presence of lupus anticoagulant. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:1982–1993.PubMedView Article
          38. Galli M, Dlott J, Norbis F, Ruggeri L, Cler L, Triplett DA, Barbui T: Lupus anticoagulants and thrombosis: clinical association of different coagulation and immunologic tests. Thromb Haemost 2000, 84:1012–1016.PubMed
          39. Nojima H, Kuratsune H, Suehisa E, Futsukaichi Y, Yamanishi H, Machii T, Kitani T, Iwatani Y, Kanakura Y: Anti-prothrombin antibodies combined with lupus anticoagulant activity is an essential risk factor for venous thromboembolism in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Br J Haematol 2001, 114:647–654.PubMedView Article
          40. Nojima J, Kuratsune H, Suehisa E, Futsukaichi Y, Yamanishi H, Machii T, Iwatani Y, Kanakura Y: Association between the prevalence of antibodies to beta(2)-glycoprotein I, prothrombin, protein C, protein S, and annexin V in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and thrombotic and thrombocytopenic complications. Clin Chem 2001, 47:1008–1015.PubMed
          41. Simmelink MJA, De Groot PG, Derksen RHWM: A study on associations between antiprothrombin antibodies, antiplasminogen antibodies and thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2002, 1:735–739.View Article
          42. Salcido-Ochoa F, Cabiedes J, Alarcón-Segovia D, Cabral AR: Antiprothrombin antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or with primary antiphospholipid syndrome. J Clin Rheumatol 2002, 8:251–255.PubMedView Article
          43. Von Landenberg P, Matthias T, Zaech J, Schultz M, Lorber M, Blank M, Shoenfeld Y: Anti-prothrombin antibodies are associated with pregnancy loss in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome. Am J Reprod Med 2003, 49:51–56.View Article
          44. Musial J, Swadzba J, Motyl A, Iwaniec T: Clinical significance of antiphospholipid protein antibodies. Receiver operating characteristics plot analysis. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:723–730.PubMed
          45. Ishikura K, Wada H, Kamikura Y, Hattori K, Fukuzawa T, Yamada N, Nakamura M, Nobori T, Nakano T: High prevalence of anti-prothrombin antibody in patients with deep vein thrombosis. Am J Hematol 2004, 76:338–742.PubMedView Article
          46. Koskenmies S, Vaarala O, Widen E, Kere J, Palosuo T, Julkunen H: The association of antibodies to cardiolipin, beta 2-glycoprotein I, prothrombin, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein with thrombosis in 292 patients with familial and sporadic systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol 2004, 33:246–252.PubMedView Article
          47. Bertolaccini ML, Atsumi T, Koike T, Hughes GR, Khamashta MA: Antiprothrombin antibodies detected in two different assay systems. Prevalence and clinical significance in systemic lupus erythematosus. Thromb Haemost 2005, 93:289–297.PubMed
          48. Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, Villalta D, Tampoia M, Tozzoli R: Prevalence and clinical correlation of anti-phospholipid binding protein antibodies in anti-cardiolipin negative patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005, 129:61–68.PubMed
          49. Forastiero R, Martinuzzo M, Pombo G, Puente D, Rossi A, Celebrin L, Bonaccorso S, Aversa L: A prospective study of antibodies to beta2-glycoprotein I and prothrombin, and risk of thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2005, 3:1231–1238.PubMedView Article
          50. Gould T, Tikly M, Asherson R, Loizou S, Singh S: Prevalence and clinical correlates of anti-phospholipid antibodies in South Africans with systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol 2006, 35:29–34.PubMedView Article
          51. Tsutumi A, Hayashi T, Chino Y, Mamura M, Goto D, Matsumoto I, Ito S, Sumida T: Significance of anti-prothrombin antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical evaluation of the antiprothrombin assay and the anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin assay, and comparison with other antiphospholipid antibody assays. Mod Rheumatol 2006, 16:158–164.View Article
          52. Nojima J, Iwatani Y, Suehisa E, Suehisa E, Kuratsune H, Kanakura Y: The presence of anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies as risk factor for both arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Haematologica 2006, 91:699–702.PubMed
          53. Bizzaro N, Ghirardello A, Zampieri S, Iaccarino L, Tozzoli R, Ruffatti A, Villalta D, Tonutti E, Doria A: Anti-prothrombin antibodies predict thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a 15 year longitudinal study. J Thromb Haemost 2007, 5:1158–1164.PubMedView Article
          54. Sailer T, Vormittag R, Zoghlami C, Koder S, Quehenberger P, Male C, Pabinger I: The clinical significance of anti-prothrombin antibodies for risk assessment of thromboembolism in patients with lupus anticoagulant. Thromb Res 2007, 120:295–302.PubMedView Article
          55. Bardin N, Alessi MC, Dignat-George F, Vague IJ, Sampol J, Harlé JR, Sanmarco M: Does the anti-prothrombin antibodies measurement provide additional information in patients with thrombosis? Immunobiology 2007, 212:557–565.PubMedView Article
          56. Jakowski TD, Wilson AR, Hill HR, Branch WD, Tebo AE: Autoantibodies against phosphatidylserine, prothrombin and phosphatidylserine-prothrombin complex: identical or distinct diagnostic tools for antiphospholipid syndrome? Clin Chim Acta 2009, 410:19–24.View Article
          57. Szodoray P, Tarr T, Tumpek J, Kappelmayer J, Lakos G, Poor G, Szegedi G, Kiss E: Identification of rare anti-phospholipid/protein co-factor autoantibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmunity 2009, 42:497–506.PubMedView Article
          58. Pengo V, Denas G, Bison E, Banzato A, Jose SP, Gresele P, Marongiu F, Erba N, Veschi F, Ghirarduzzi A, De Candia E, Montaruli B, Marietta M, Testa S, Barcellona D, Tripodi A: Prevalence and significance of anti-prothrombin antibodies in patients with lupus anticoagulant (LA). Thromb Res 2010, 126:150–153.PubMedView Article
          59. Marozio L, Curti A, Botta G, Canuto EM, Salton L, Tavella AM, Benedetto C: Anti-prothrombin antibodies are associated with adverse pregnancy outcome. Am J Reprod Immunol 2011, 66:404–409.PubMedView Article
          60. Hoxha A, Ruffatti A, Pittoni M: The clinical significance of autoantibodies directed against prothrombin in primary antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Chim Acta 2012, 413:911–913.PubMedView Article
          61. Sater MS, Finan RR, Abu-Hijleh FM, Abu-Hijleh TM, Almawi WY: Anti-phosphatidylserine, anti-cardiolipin, anti-beta2glycoprotein I and anti-prothrombin antibodies in recurrent miscarriage at 8–12 gestational weeks. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012, 163:170–174.PubMedView Article
          62. Nojima J, Kuratsune H, Suehisa E, Kitani T, Iwatani Y, Kanakura Y: Strong correlation between the prevalence of cerebral infarction and the presence of anti-cardiolipin/antibeta2-glycoprotein I and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies. Co-existence of these antibodies enhance ADP-induced platelet activation. Thromb Haemost 2004, 91:967–976.PubMed
          63. Atsumi T, Koike T: Anti-prothrombin antibody: why do we need more assays? Lupus 2010, 19:436–439.PubMedView Article
          64. Žigon P, Ambrožič A, Čučnik S, Kveder T, Rozman B, Božič B: Modified phosphatidylserine-dependent antithrombin ELISA enables identification of patients negative for other antiphospholipid antibodies and also detects low avidity antibodies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011, 49:1011–1018.PubMed
          65. Vlagea A, Gil A, Cuesta MV, Arribas F, Diez J, Lavilla P, Pascual-Salcedo D: Antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) as potential markers of antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2013, 19:289–296.PubMedView Article
          66. Sciascia S, Murru V, Sanna G, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML: Clinical accuracy for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: evaluation of 23 possible combinations of antiphospholipid antibody specificities. J Thromb Haemost 2012, 10:2512–2518.PubMedView Article
          67. Shoenfeld Y, Krause I, Kvapil F, Sulkes J, Lev S, von Landenberg P, Font J, Zaech J, Cervera R, Piette JC, Boffa MC, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML, Hughes GR, Youinou P, Meroni PL, Pengo V, Alves JD, Tincani A, Szegedi G, Lakos G, Sturfelt G, Jönsen A, Koike T, Sanmarco M, Ruffatti A, Ulcova-Gallova Z, Praprotnik S, Rozman B, Lorber M, Vriezman VB, Blank M: Prevalence and clinical correlations of antibodies against six beta2-glycoprotein-I-related peptides in the antiphospholipid syndrome. J Clin Immunol 2003, 23:377–383.PubMedView Article
          68. Mahler M, Norman GL, Meroni PL, Khamashta M: Autoantibodies to domain 1 of beta 2 glycoprotein 1: a promising candidate biomarker for risk management in antiphospholipid syndrome. Autoimmun Rev 2012, 12:313–317.PubMedView Article
          69. de Laat B, de Groot PG: Autoantibodies directed against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2011, 13:70–76.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
          70. de Laat B, Pengo V, Pabinger I, Musial J, Voskuyl AE, Bultink IE, Ruffatti A, Rozman B, Kveder T, de Moerloose P, Boehlen F, Rand J, Ulcova-Gallova Z, Mertens K, de Groot PG: The association between circulating antibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein I and thrombosis: an international multicenter study. J Thromb Haemost 2009, 7:1767–1773.PubMedView Article
          71. Zuily S, De Laat B, Regnault V, Guillemin F, Kaminsky P, Albesa R, Norman G, De Groot PG, Lecompte T, Wahl D: Autoantibodies against domain I of beta2-glycoprotein indicate an increased risk for thrombosis in antiphospholipid patients, A prospective cohort study. J Thromb Haemost 2013, 11:S3.
          72. Agmon-Levin N, Seguro L, Rosario C, Mahler M, Gatto M, Tomer N, Leon E, Doria A, Kovács L, Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Gilburd B, Shoenfeld Y: Anti-β2GPI-DI antibodies are a marker of APS severity. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S1.View Article
          73. Andreoli L, Nalli C, Borghi MO, Pregnolato F, Grossi C, Zangola A, Allegri F, Gerosa M, Mahler M, Norman GL, Meroni PL, Tincani A: Domain I is the main specificity of anti-beta2 GPI in systemic autoimmune diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S4.View Article
          74. Chighizola CB, Gerosa M, Meroni PL: New tests to detect antiphospholipid antibodies: anti-domain I beta-2-glycoprotein-I antibodies. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2014, 16:402.PubMedView Article
          75. Willis R, Mahler M, Pregnolato F, Pericleous C, Rahman A, Ioannou J, Giles I, Lakos G, Albesa R, Zohoury N, Meroni PL, Pierangeli S: Clinical evaluation of two anti-Beta2glycoprotein I Domain 1 autoantibody assays to aid in the diagnosis and risk assessment of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S3.
          76. Ioannou Y, Pericleous C, Giles I, Latchman DS, Isenberg DA, Rahman A: Binding of antiphospholipid antibodies to discontinuous epitopes on domain I of human beta(2)-glycoprotein I: mutation studies including residues R39 to R43. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 56:280–290.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
          77. Agostinis C, Durigutto P, Sblattero D, Borghi M, Grossi C, Bulla R, Macor P, Meroni PL, Tedesco F: A human monoclonal antibody against domain I of β2-glycoprotein I prevents clotting and fetal loss induced by polyclonal anti-phospholipid antibodies in animal models. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S245.
          78. Staub HL, Bertolaccini ML, Khamashta MA: Anti-phosphatidylethanolamine antibody, thromboembolic events and the antiphospholipid syndrome. Autoimmun Rev 2012, 12:230–234.PubMedView Article
          79. Sugi T, Matsubayashi H, Inomo A, Dan L, Makino T: Antiphosphatidylethanolamine antibodies in recurrent early pregnancy loss and mid-to-late pregnancy loss. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2004, 30:326–332.PubMedView Article
          80. Conti F, Alessandri C, Sorice M, Capozzi A, Longo A, Garofalo T, Misasi R, Bompane D, Hughes GR, Khamashta MA, Valesini G: Thin-layer chromatography immunostaining in detecting anti-phospholipid antibodies in seronegative anti-phospholipid syndrome. Clin Exp Immunol 2012, 167:429–437.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
          81. Bertolaccini ML, Amengual O, Atsumi T, Binder WL, de Laat B, Forastiero R, Kutteh WH, Lambert M, Matsubayashi H, Murthy V, Petri M, Rand JH, Sanmarco M, Tebo AE, Pierangeli SS: 'Non-criteria' aPL tests: report of a task force and preconference workshop at the 13th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies, Galveston, TX, USA, April 2010. Lupus 2011, 20:191–205.PubMedView Article
          82. Nayfe R, Uthman I, Aoun J, Saad Aldin E, Merashli M, Khamashta MA: Seronegative antiphospholipid syndrome. Rheumatology 2013, 52:1358–1367.PubMedView Article
          83. Yodfat O, Blank M, Krause I, Shoenfeld Y: The pathogenic role of anti-phosphatidylserine antibodies: active immunization with the antibodies leads to the induction of antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996, 78:14–20.PubMedView Article
          84. Grossi C, Borghi MO, Papaardo E, Pierangeli SS, Meroni PL: A more specific immunoassay for the diagnosis of APS. Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S5.View Article
          85. Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML: The clinical value of testing for Aphl, a new ELISA kit with a unique phospholipid mixture in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Arthritis Rheum 2013, 65:S1.View Article
          86. Cesarman-Maus G, Ríos-Luna NP, Deora AB, Huang B, Villa R, Cravioto Mdel C, Alarcón-Segovia D, Sánchez-Guerrero J, Hajjar KA: Autoantibodies against the fibrinolytic receptor, annexin 2, in antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood 2006, 107:4375–4382.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
          87. Lambrianides A, Carroll CJ, Pierangeli SS, Pericleous C, Branch W, Rice J, Latchman DS, Townsend P, Isenberg DA, Rhaman A, Giles IP: Effects of polyclonal IgG derived from patients with different clinical types of the antiphospholipid syndrome on monocyte signaling pathways. J Immunol 2010, 184:6622–6628.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
          88. Meroni PL, Raschi E, Grossi C, Pregnolato F, Trespidi L, Acaia B, Borghi MO: Obstetric and vascular APS: same autoantibodies but different diseases? Lupus 2012, 21:708–710.PubMedView Article
          89. Agostinis C, Biffi S, Garrovo C, Durigutto P, Lorenzon A, Bek A, Bulla R, Grossi C, Borghi MO, Meroni P, Tedesco F: In vivo distribution of β2 glycoprotein I under various pathophysiologic conditions. Blood 2011, 118:4231–4238.PubMedView Article
          90. Passam FH, Giannakopoulos B, Mirarabshahi P, Krilis SA: Molecular pathophysiology of the antiphospholipid syndrome: the role of oxidative post-translational modification of beta 2 glycoprotein I. J Thromb Haemost 2011, 9:275–282.PubMedView Article

          Copyright

          © The Author(s) 2014

          This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. The licensee has exclusive rights to distribute this article, in any medium, for 6 months following its publication. After this time, the article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.