Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital,Stockholm, Sweden.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Mar;52(3):501-9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes252. Epub 2012 Nov 18.
To evaluate the agreement and performance of two tests for aPLs with regard to association with manifestations of the APS in patients with SLE.
We investigated 712 SLE patients and 280 population controls. Cardiolipin and β(2) glycoprotein-I antibodies were measured with routine ELISA and a new automated method. Three positivity cut-offs (99%, 90% of controls and recommended cut-off by manufacturers) were used. Associations with previous thrombotic events, thrombocytopenia and, in a subgroup of patients, obstetric morbidity (n = 296) were evaluated. Results were compared with the LA test, performed in 380 patients.
Inter-test agreement was moderate (demonstrated by κ-values 0.16-0.71). Performance of the two tests was similar: at the 99th percentile cut-off, sensitivity for any thrombotic event ranged from 3.7% to 24.8%, while specificity was 84.7-97.7%. Regardless of assay, IgG isotypes were associated with venous thrombosis and ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, whereas aPLs of IgM isotype were weakly associated with ischaemic heart disease. Associations were greatly affected by aPL level. LA performed better than the specific aPL tests. LA was associated with any thrombotic event, odds ratio 5.4 (95% CI 3.1, 9.4), while the specific aPL tests ranged from non-significant to an odds ratio of 1.9 (95% CI 1.03, 3.4) using criteria cut-off. LA was also convincingly associated with other APS manifestations.
In relation to thrombotic manifestations, there was moderate agreement but no clear advantages when comparing a routine aPL ELISA with an automated method. APL isotype and titre as well as LA positivity are important for risk assessment in SLE patients.
评估两种抗磷脂抗体(aPLs)检测方法与系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)患者的 APS 表现之间的一致性和性能。
我们研究了 712 名 SLE 患者和 280 名健康对照者。采用常规 ELISA 和一种新的自动化方法检测心磷脂和β(2)糖蛋白-I 抗体。使用 3 个阳性截断值(99%、90%的对照组和制造商推荐的截断值)。评估与先前的血栓事件、血小板减少以及在患者亚组(n=296)中的产科并发症之间的关系。结果与在 380 名患者中进行的 LA 试验进行比较。
两种检测方法之间的一致性为中等(由κ值 0.16-0.71 证明)。两种检测方法的性能相似:在 99%截断值时,任何血栓事件的敏感性范围为 3.7%-24.8%,而特异性为 84.7%-97.7%。无论检测方法如何,IgG 同种型与静脉血栓形成和缺血性脑血管疾病相关,而 IgM 同种型的 aPLs 与缺血性心脏病相关较弱。相关性受 aPL 水平的影响很大。LA 比特异性 aPL 检测效果更好。LA 与任何血栓事件相关,比值比为 5.4(95%CI 3.1,9.4),而特异性 aPL 检测在使用标准截断值时,范围从无显著意义到比值比为 1.9(95%CI 1.03,3.4)。LA 也与其他 APS 表现明显相关。
在与血栓形成表现相关的方面,与常规 aPL ELISA 与自动化方法相比,具有中等的一致性,但没有明显的优势。APL 同种型和滴度以及 LA 阳性对于评估 SLE 患者的风险很重要。