Advertisement

Characteristics of pregnancy complications and treatment in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome in China

  • Zhuochao Zhou
  • Jialin Teng
  • Yue Sun
  • Honglei Liu
  • Xiaobing Cheng
  • Yutong Su
  • Chengde YangEmail author
  • Junna YeEmail author
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by obstetric complications and thrombotic events associated with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). We aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and treatment of primary APS (PAPS) and secondary APS (systemic lupus erythematosus-APS, SAPS) patients and investigate risk factors associated with obstetric complications in Shanghai, China.

Methods

We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of obstetric APS (OAPS) patients from 2000 to 2017 in the APS-Shanghai (APS-SH) database.

Results

One hundred eighty OAPS patients with a total of 450 pregnancies were included in this study. Two hundred twenty-one (49.11%) pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 161 (35.77%) pregnancies resulted in intrauterine death. In our cohort, when women were treated, 57 out of 66 pregnancies resulted in live births (86%). Of the 9 treated patients who failed to have live births, 3 had intrauterine deaths, 3 had fetal growth restriction, 2 had pneumorrhagia of the newborn, and 1 had a miscarriage. OAPS patients were divided into two groups: PAPS and SAPS. More SAPS patients than PAPS patients used glucocorticoids (GCs) and hydroxychloroquine (both p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the GC dosage between SAPS and PAPS patients (p = 0.188). Lupus anticoagulant (LAC) and IgG aβ2GPI were risk factors for miscarriage (odds ratio (OR) = 2.398, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.276–4.505, p = 0.002; OR = 2.907, 95% CI = 1.558–5.405, p = 0.001, respectively) and intrauterine death (OR = 2.439, 95% CI = 1.299–4.580, p = 0.006; OR = 2.060, 95% CI = 1.089–3.897, p = 0.026, respectively).

Conclusions

The live birth rate of OAPS patients in Shanghai was 86%. Even if OAPS patients were treated, pregnancy complications could occur, and these patients might need further second-line treatment.

Key Points

This is the first study to report data on Chinese OAPS patients. The live birth rate was 86%.

• Lupus anticoagulant and IgG aβ2GPI were risk factors for miscarriage and intrauterine death in our cohort.

• Despite active treatment, 9 patients had obstetric complications. Therefore, further second-line treatment is still needed.

Keywords

Antiphospholipid antibodies Obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome Pregnancy Treatment. 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Fan Wang, Hui Shi, and Jieyu Gu who helped in collecting the clinical data and Jian Li who helped in performing the statistical analysis.

Fundings

This work is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81671589, 81871272, 81801592), Shanghai Sailing Program (18YF1414100), Shanghai Jiao Tong University Interdisciplinary Research Project (YG2016QN60), and Excellent Youth B Project (GCQN-2017-B05).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

None.

Supplementary material

10067_2019_4670_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ruiz-Irastorza G, Crowther M, Branch W, Khamashta MA (2010) Antiphospholipid syndrome. Lancet 376(9751):1498–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruffatti A, Hoxha A, Favaro M, Tonello M, Colpo A, Cucchini U et al (2017) Additional treatments for high-risk obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 53(1):28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levine JS, Branch DW, Rauch J (2002) The antiphospholipid syndrome. N Engl J Med 346(10):752–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rai RS, Regan L, Clifford K, Pickering W, Dave M, Mackie I et al (1995) Antiphospholipid antibodies and beta 2-glycoprotein-I in 500 women with recurrent miscarriage: results of a comprehensive screening approach. Hum Reprod 10(8):2001–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chighizola CB, Gerosa M, Trespidi L, Di Giacomo A, Rossi F, Acaia B et al (2014) Update on the current recommendations and outcomes in pregnant women with antiphospholipid syndrome. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 10(11):1505–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cervera R, Serrano R, Pons-Estel GJ, Ceberio-Hualde L, Shoenfeld Y, de Ramón E et al (2015) Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis 74:1011–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alijotas-Reig J, Ferrer-Oliveras R, Ruffatti A, Tincani A, Lefkou E, Bertero MT et al (2015) The European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome (EUROAPS): a survey of 247 consecutive cases. Autoimmun Rev 14:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Jesús GR, Rodrigues G, de Jesús NR, Levy R (2014) Pregnancy morbidity in antiphospholipid syndrome: what is the impact of treatment? Curr Rheumatol Rep 16:403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belizna C, Stojanovich L, Cohen-Tervaert JW et al (2018) Primary antiphospholipid syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome associated to systemic lupus: are they different entities? Autoimmun Rev 17(8):739–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paule R, Morel N, Le Guern V et al (2018) Classification of primary antiphospholipid syndrome as systemic lupus erythematosus: analysis of a cohort of 214 patients. Autoimmun Rev 17(9):866–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alijotas-Reig J, Garrido-Gimenez C (2013) Current concepts and new trends in the diagnosis and management of recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol Surv 68:445–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erkan D, Aguiar CL, Andrade D, Cohen H, Cuadrado MJ, Danowski A et al (2014) 14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies: task force report on antiphospholipid syndrome treatment trends. Autoimmun Rev 13:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fredi M, Andreoli L, Aggogeri E et al (2018) Risk factors for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in women with confirmed aPL positivity: results from a multicenter study of 283 pregnancies. Front Immunol 9:864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marchetti T, de Moerloose P, Gris JC (2016) Antiphospholipid antibodies and the risk of severe and non-severe pre-eclampsia: the NOHA case-control study. J Thromb Haemost 14(4):675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shi H, Teng JL, Sun Y, Wu XY, Hu QY, Liu HL et al (2017) Clinical characteristics and laboratory findings of 252 Chinese patients with anti-phospholipid syndrome: comparison with Euro-Phospholipid cohort. Clin Rheumatol 36:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson WA, Gharavi AE, Koike T, Lockshin MD, Branch DW, Piette JC et al (1999) International consensus statement on preliminary classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome: report of an international workshop. Arthritis Rheum 42:1309–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, Branch DW, Brey RL, Cervera R et al (2006) International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome(APS). J Thromb Haemost 4:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hochberg MC (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 40:1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asherson RA, Cervera R, de Groot PG, Erkan D, Boffa MC, Piette JC et al (2003) Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome: international consensus statement on classification criteria and treatment guidelines. Lupus 12:530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schreiber K, Hunt BJ (2016) Pregnancy and antiphospholipid syndrome. Semin Thromb Hemost 42:780–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fernandez Mosteirin N, Saez Comet L, Salvador Osuna C, Calvo Villas JM, Velilla Marco J (2017) Independent validation of the adjusted GAPSS: role of thrombotic risk assessment in the real-life setting. Lupus 26:1328–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pengo V, Tripodi A, Reber G et al (2009) Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection. Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody of the Scientific and Standardisation Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 7(10):1737–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yelnik CM, Laskin CA, Porter TF, Branch DW, Buyon JP, Guerra MM et al (2016) Lupus anticoagulant is the main predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes in aPL-positive patients: validation of PROMISSE study results. Lupus Sci Med 3(1):e000131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lockshin MD, Kim M, Laskin CA, Guerra M, Branch DW, Merrill J, al w (2012) Prediction of adverse pregnancy outcome by the presence of lupus anticoagulant, but not anti-cardiolipin antibody, in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 64(7):2311–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saccone G, Berghella V, Maruotti GM, Ghi T, Rizzo G, Simonazzi G et al (2017) Antiphospholipid antibody profile based obstetric outcomes of primary antiphospholipid syndrome: the PREGNANTS study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216(5):525.e1–525.e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shi H, Zheng H, Yin YF, Hu QY, Teng JL, Sun Y et al (2018) Antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) as potential diagnostic markers and risk predictors of venous thrombosis and obstetric complications in antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Chem Lab Med 56:614–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu L, Li C, Liu N, Yang X, Jia RL, Mu R et al (2017) Diagnostic value of antibodies to phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex for antiphospholipid syndrome in Chinese patients. Clin Rheumatol 36:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang S, Wu Z, Li J, Wen X, Li L, Zhang W et al (2017) Evaluation of the clinical relevance of anti-annexin-A5 antibodies in Chinese patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Rheumatol 36:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang S, Wu Z, Li J, Li P, Chen S, Wen X et al (2017) Clinical performance of antibodies to prothrombin and thrombin in Chinese patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: potential interest in discriminating patients with thrombotic events and non-thrombotic events. Rheumatol Int 37:579–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang S, Wu Z, Chen S, Li J, Wen X, Li L et al (2016) Evaluation of the diagnostic potential of antibodies to beta2-glycoprotein 1 domain 1 in Chinese patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Sci Rep 6:23839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alijotas-Reig J, Esteve-Valverde E, Ferrer-Oliveras R et al (2019) The European Registry on Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome (EUROAPS): a survey of 1000 consecutive cases. Autoimmun Rev 18(4):406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiao J, Xiong J, Zhu F, He L (2013) Effect of prednisone, aspirin, low molecular weight heparin and intravenous immunoglobulin on outcome of pregnancy in women with antiphospholipid syndrome. Exp Ther Med 5:287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mekinian A, Lazzaroni MG, Kuzenko A, Alijotas-Reig J, Ruffatti A, Levy P et al (2015) The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for obstetrical outcome in anti-phospholipid syndrome: data from a European multicenter retrospective study. Autoimmun Rev 14:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ruffatti A, Tonello M, Hoxha A, Sciascia S, Cuadrado MJ, Latino JO et al (2018) Effect of additional treatments combined with conventional therapies in pregnant patients with high-risk antiphospholipid syndrome: a multicentre study. Thromb Haemost 118(4):639–646Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tenti S, Cheleschi S, Guidelli GM, Galeazzi M, Fioravanti A (2016) Intravenous immunoglobulins and antiphospholipid syndrome: how, when and why? A review of the literature. Autoimmun Rev 15:226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruffatti A, Salvan E, Del Ross T, Gerosa M, Andreoli L, Maina A et al (2014) Treatment strategies and pregnancy outcomes in antiphospholipid syndrome patients with thrombosis and triple antiphospholipid positivity. A European multicentre retrospective study. Thromb Haemost 112(4):727–735Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Ruijin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations