Bala Malgorzata M, Paszek Elżbieta, Lesniak Wiktoria, Wloch-Kopec Dorota, Jasinska Katarzyna, Undas Anetta
Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine; Department of Hygiene and Dietetics; Systematic Reviews Unit - Polish Cochrane Branch, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 7, Krakow, Poland, 31-034.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 13;7(7):CD012534. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012534.pub2.
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications (recurrent miscarriage, premature birth, intrauterine growth retardation) and thrombotic events (both arterial and venous). The most common thrombotic events include brain ischaemia (stroke or transient ischaemic attack) and deep vein thrombosis. To diagnose APS, the presence of aPL antibodies in two measurements and at least one thrombotic event or pregnancy complication are required. It is unclear if people with positive aPL antibodies but without any previous thrombotic events should receive primary antithrombotic prophylaxis.
To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents versus placebo or no intervention or other intervention on the development of thrombosis in people with aPL antibodies who have not had a thrombotic event. We did not address obstetric outcomes in this review as these have been thoroughly addressed by other Cochrane Reviews.
We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (4 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last search 29 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (searched 4 December 2017), and trials registries (searched 29 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and contacted experts in the field.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or their combinations, at any dose and mode of delivery with placebo, no intervention, or other intervention. We also included RCTs that compared antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents with each other or that compared two different doses of the same drug. We included studies performed in people of any age and with no history of thrombosis (as defined by APS Sapporo classification criteria or updated Sydney classification criteria), but with aPL antibodies confirmed on at last two separate measurements. The studies included both pregnant women who tested positive for aPL antibodies and had a history of recurrent obstetric complications, as well as non-pregnancy related cases with positive screening for antibodies, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above.
Pairs of authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies and quality of evidence using GRADE. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third review author when necessary. In addition, one review author checked all the extracted numerical data.
We included nine studies involving 1044 randomised participants. The studies took place in several countries and had different funding sources. No study was at low risk of bias in all domains. We classified all included studies as at unclear or high risk of bias in two or more domains. Seven included studies focused mainly on obstetric outcomes. One study included non-pregnancy-related cases, and one study included both pregnancy-related cases and other patients with positive results for aPL antibodies. The remaining studies concerned women with aPL antibodies and a history of pregnancy failure. Four studies compared anticoagulant with or without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA only and observed no clear difference in thrombosis risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 3.77; 4 studies; 493 participants; low-quality evidence). No major bleeding was reported, but minor bleeding risk (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was higher in the anticoagulant with ASA group as compared with ASA alone in one study (RR 22.45, 95% CI 1.34 to 374.81; 1 study; 164 participants; low-quality evidence). In one study ASA was compared with placebo, and there were no clear differences in thrombosis (RR 5.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.97; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) or minor bleeding risk between the groups (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.34 to 29.01; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence), and no major bleeding was observed. Two studies compared ASA with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus placebo or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and no thrombotic events were observed in any of the groups. Moreover, there were no clear differences in the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (RR 9.0, 95% CI 0.49 to 164.76; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or postpartum bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.81; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. Two studies compared ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWF or unfractionated heparin (UFH); no thrombotic events or major bleeding was reported. Mortality and quality of life data were not reported for any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit or harm of using anticoagulants with or without ASA versus ASA alone in people with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and with no such history; ASA versus placebo in people with aPL antibodies; and ASA with LMWH versus placebo or IVIG, and ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWH or UFH, in women with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, for the primary prevention of thrombotic events. In a mixed population of people with a history of previous pregnancy loss and without such a history treated with anticoagulant combined with ASA, the incidence of minor bleeding (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was increased when compared with ASA alone. Studies that are adequately powered and that focus mainly on thrombotic events are needed to draw any firm conclusions on the primary prevention of thrombotic events in people with antiphospholipid antibodies.
抗磷脂综合征(APS)是一种自身免疫性疾病,其特征是存在具有促血栓形成活性的抗磷脂(aPL)抗体。抗磷脂抗体与妊娠并发症(复发性流产、早产、胎儿生长受限)和血栓形成事件(动脉和静脉)的风险增加相关。最常见的血栓形成事件包括脑缺血(中风或短暂性脑缺血发作)和深静脉血栓形成。要诊断APS,需要两次检测中均存在aPL抗体,且至少有一次血栓形成事件或妊娠并发症。目前尚不清楚aPL抗体阳性但既往无血栓形成事件的患者是否应接受一级抗血栓预防。
评估抗血小板或抗凝药物与安慰剂、无干预措施或其他干预措施相比,对既往无血栓形成事件的aPL抗体阳性患者发生血栓形成的影响。由于其他Cochrane系统评价已对产科结局进行了全面探讨,因此本综述未涉及产科结局。
我们检索了Cochrane血管专业注册库(2017年12月4日)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(最后检索时间为2017年11月29日)、MEDLINE Ovid、Embase Ovid、CINAHL和AMED(检索时间为2017年12月4日)以及试验注册库(检索时间为2017年11月29日)。我们还查阅了纳入研究、系统评价和实践指南的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了任何剂量和给药方式的抗血小板或抗凝药物及其组合与安慰剂、无干预措施或其他干预措施。我们还纳入了比较抗血小板或抗凝药物相互之间或比较同一药物两种不同剂量的RCT。我们纳入了在任何年龄且无血栓形成病史(根据APS札幌分类标准或更新的悉尼分类标准定义)的人群中进行的研究,但至少两次独立检测证实存在aPL抗体。根据上述标准,研究包括aPL抗体检测呈阳性且有复发性产科并发症病史的孕妇,以及抗体筛查呈阳性的非妊娠相关病例。
两位作者独立选择纳入研究、提取数据,并使用GRADE评估纳入研究的偏倚风险和证据质量。如有任何差异,通过讨论解决,必要时咨询第三位综述作者。此外,一位综述作者检查了所有提取的数值数据。
我们纳入了9项研究,涉及1044名随机参与者。这些研究在多个国家进行,资金来源不同。没有一项研究在所有领域均处于低偏倚风险。我们将所有纳入研究归类为在两个或更多领域处于不清楚或高偏倚风险。7项纳入研究主要关注产科结局。1项研究纳入了非妊娠相关病例,1项研究纳入了妊娠相关病例和aPL抗体检测呈阳性的其他患者。其余研究涉及有aPL抗体和妊娠失败病史的女性。4项研究比较了使用或不使用乙酰水杨酸(ASA)的抗凝剂与仅使用ASA的情况,未观察到血栓形成风险有明显差异(风险比(RR)0.98,95%置信区间(CI)0.25至3.77;4项研究;493名参与者;低质量证据)。未报告重大出血,但在一项研究中,与仅使用ASA相比,使用ASA的抗凝剂组轻微出血风险(鼻出血、月经过多)更高(RR 22.45,95%CI 1.34至374.81;1项研究;164名参与者;低质量证据)。在一项研究中,将ASA与安慰剂进行了比较,两组之间在血栓形成(RR 5.21,95%CI 0.63至42.97;1项研究;98名参与者;低质量证据)或轻微出血风险方面没有明显差异(RR 3.13,95%CI 0.34至29.01;1项研究;98名参与者;低质量证据),且未观察到重大出血。2项研究比较了ASA与低分子量肝素(LMWH)与安慰剂或静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIG),任何一组均未观察到血栓形成事件。此外,两组之间在需要输血的出血风险(RR 9.0,95%CI 0.49至164.76;1项研究;180名参与者;中等质量证据)或产后出血(RR 1.30,95%CI 0.60至2.81;1项研究;180名参与者;中等质量证据)方面没有明显差异。2项研究比较了高剂量LMWH与低剂量LMWF或普通肝素(UFH)联合ASA的情况;未报告血栓形成事件或重大出血。所有比较均未报告死亡率和生活质量数据。
对于有复发性流产病史和无此类病史且aPL抗体阳性的患者,使用或不使用ASA的抗凝剂与仅使用ASA相比,以及aPL抗体阳性患者中ASA与安慰剂相比,还有有复发性流产病史且aPL抗体阳性的女性中ASA与LMWH与安慰剂或IVIG相比,以及高剂量LMWH与低剂量LMWH或UFH联合ASA相比,在血栓形成事件的一级预防方面,均没有足够的证据证明其有益或有害。在既往有流产病史和无此类病史混合人群中,与仅使用ASA相比,使用抗凝剂联合ASA治疗时轻微出血(鼻出血、月经过多)的发生率增加。需要进行有足够统计学效力且主要关注血栓形成事件的研究,才能就抗磷脂抗体阳性患者血栓形成事件的一级预防得出任何确切结论。