Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Clinical Chemistry, 6(56), p. 930-940, 2010

DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.133678

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Challenges in the diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome

Journal article published in 2010 by Katrien Devreese, Marc F. Hoylaerts ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background: The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an important cause of acquired thromboembolic complications and pregnancy morbidity. Its diagnosis is based on clinical and laboratory criteria, defined by strict guidelines. The original clinical and laboratory criteria for the identification of APS patients were published in 1999, in the so-called Sapporo criteria. In 2006 these criteria were revised, and recently more precise guidelines for analysis of the lupus anticoagulant have been provided. However, several questions related to the diagnosis of APS remain unanswered. Content: In addition to providing a historical perspective, this review covers several challenges in the diagnosis of APS with respect to clinical and laboratory features, while highlighting pathogenic pathways of the syndrome. We discuss ongoing dilemmas in the diagnosis of this complex disease. Although antiphospholipid antibodies are found in association with various clinical manifestations, the older established clinical criteria were not substantively altered in the 2006 update. Several laboratory tests recommended in the latest criteria, including phospholipid-dependent coagulation tests for the detection of the lupus anticoagulant and ELISAs for measuring anticardiolipin and β2-glycoprotein I antibodies, still show methodological and diagnostic shortcomings. In addition, antiphospholipid antibodies have been described against other antigens, but their clinical role remains uncertain. Conclusions: Despite updated APS criteria, diagnosis of this syndrome remains challenging. Further research on clinically relevant antibodies and standardization of their detection are needed to improve clinical risk assessment in APS.