MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long Term Monitoring of Patients with Positive Lupus Anticoagulant and Antiphospholipid Antibodies. Are All Cases Persistently Positive?

2016· article· en· W2734717767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew R. Kovacs, Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, Martha Louzada, Michael J. Kovacs

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntiphospholipid syndromeThrombosisLupus anticoagulantInternal medicinePediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background. Lupus Anticoagulants (LA) and Antiphospholipid Antibodies (APLA) are known to be associated with both arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The implications of positive test results often include indefinite anticoagulant therapy and thus accurately identifying these patients is important. Current guidelines for laboratory testing of both LA and APLA, require that initial positive results are confirmed by repeat testing at least 12 weeks after initial positivity to be considered diagnostic. Repeat testing is not routinely performed once a patient is deemed to be positive. If repeat testing is performed years after initial confirmation and is negative, the clinical implications of this are not certain and there are no criteria to determine which patients can safely be considered negative. We aimed to determine the proportion of patients with positive LA or APLA who remained positive at least 2 years after initial confirmation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of patients with positive LA and APLA evaluated at the Thrombosis Clinic of the London Health Sciences Centre (London, Ontario, Canada) between 1998 and 2016 and who had repeat LA/APLA tests done at least 2 years after the initial LA/APLA positive confirmation. LA testing was done as per the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria available at the time of testing, using dilute Russell viper venom time screening and confirmatory tests in all cases. APLA testing was done using commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Louisville APL Diagnostics Inc. or Inova Diagnostics Inc.), according to the manufacturers' instructions. Results. We included 73 patients (39 [53.4%] female). The average age at diagnosis of LA or APLA was 49.3 years. The average follow-up was 103.1 months (range 24 to 218 months). At diagnosis, 57 (78%) patients had a VTE (26 deep vein thrombosis [DVT], 16 pulmonary embolism [PE], 17 both DVT and PE), 10 had a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and 3 myocardial infarction (MI). Warfarin was the most common long-term anticoagulant used (66 of 73 patients). Nine patients were treated with rivaroxaban, 5 with LMWH, and 1 patient was treated with edoxaban. A total of 4 patients did not require anticoagulant therapy. Eleven (15.1%) patients suffered a recurrent thrombotic event while on anticoagulant therapy, (5 DVT, 5 PE, 1 DVT and PE). Nine of the recurrent events occurred while the patient was being treated with warfarin. Four of the 40 female patients suffered at least one miscarriage. One patient died while being followed due to complications from renal failure. The mean time between the first positive test and the first confirmatory test was 8.9 months (range 3 to 132), whereas the mean time between the first confirmatory test and the first repeat test was 68.9 months (range 24 to 207). Thirty-seven (50.6%) patients were negative on the second repeat test. All of them remained on anticoagulants. Conclusion. Our results suggest that up to 50% of patients became negative for LA and/or APLA at least 2 years after initial positivity, particularly if only one type of test was positive at diagnosis. The clinical relevance of this result is not certain including implications about discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. Further research in this relevant matter is warranted. Table Table. Disclosures Lazo-Langner: Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Louzada:Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Kovacs:Daiichi Sankyo Pharma: Research Funding; LEO Pharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→