MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

INTRA-RENAL INVOLVEMENT IN PRIMARY ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES SYNDROME: DATA FROM 2 ITALIAN CENTERS

2025· article· en· W4410715635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liala Moschetti, Savino Sciascia, Micaela Fredi, Ilaria Cavazzana, Massimo Radin, Stefania Affatato, Cecilia Nalli, Laura Andréoli, Federico Alberici, Dario Roccatello, Franco Franceschini, Anǵela Tincani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntiphospholipid syndromeAntibodyImmunopathologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV020 / #573 Poster Topic: AS03 - Antiphospholipid Syndrome Background/Purpose Antiphospholipid antibodies nephropathy (aPL-N) is defined by thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) early lesions and late lesions such fibro-intimal hyperplasia with luminal obliteration/organized thrombi, fibrous arterial/arteriolar occlusion and focal cortical atrophy.[1] Beyond these distinct microvascular lesions, other glomerular conditions (membranous nephropathy, MN; focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, FSGS), were reported in primary APS (PAPS) patients, even without aPL-related vascular lesions. Objectives. 1) To evaluate clinical/laboratory features associated to intra-renal involvement in PAPS patients; 2) to clinically and histologically characterize PAPS patients with a) aPL-N and b) non-aPL-N intra-renal involvement. Methods Observational retrospective multicentric study including PAPS patients regularly followed (1984-2023). 1) Case-control study: PAPS patients with intra-renal involvement histologically confirmed vs PAPS patients without renal involvement signs. 2) Separate analysis according to renal histologic findings: a) aPL-N and b) non-aPL-N. Results Among 258 PAPS patients (78% females, median age at onset: 32 years, 67% thrombotic phenotype, 54% obstetric phenotype, 41% triple aPL+), 17 (7%) had histologically confirmed intra-renal involvement. It was the first disease manifestation in 10/17 (59%) patients, the main presentation was with isolated urinary abnormalities (IUAs) in 53% of the cases. At renal biopsy 35% had classic aPL-N injuries while 65% showed non-aPL-N intra-renal lesions. 1) Patients with intra-renal involvement suffered less macrovascular thrombotic events and more catastrophic APS (CAPS), thrombocytopenia, epilepsy, and lupus anticoagulant (LA)+ (Table 1). 2a) aPL-N was the first manifestation of APS in 5/6 (83%) cases, presenting with severe arterial hypertension in 17%, CAPS in 33% and IUAs in 50%. Despite therapy with anticoagulant (60%) or antiplatelet (40%) drugs in most patients, the 12-months renal response was complete in only 1/3 of the cases; half of the patients suffered subsequent aPL-related events (3/6 thrombocytopenia; 2/6 thrombotic events). 2b) PAPS patients with non-aPL-N intra-renal lesions had MN in 6/11 and FSGS in 5/11 cases, with some degree of non-specific vascular injury in 64%. As compared to patients with aPL-N, they presented more frequently normal serum creatinine and higher 24h-proteinuria levels (Figure 1) but no differences in systemic autoantibodies/complement levels. All the patients belonging to this subgroup experienced aPL-related events (8/11 thrombotic events, 5/6 obstetric events, 3/11 epilepsy, 2/11 heart valve lesions, 1/11 thrombocytopenia), that in 45% cases were preceded by the renal disease. Table 1. Continuous variables are presented as median (1st-3rd quartile) and compared with Mann-Whitney test; categorical variables are presented as number/number available data (%) and compared with Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test. *= “extra-criteria” according to Sydney APS criteria 2006. Abbreviations: APS= antiphospholipid syndrome; aPL= antiphospholipid antibodies; LA= lupus anticoagulant; aCL= anticardiolipin antibodies. aβ2GPI= anti-beta2glycoproteinl antibodies; ANA= antinuclear antibodies. Figure 1. aPL-N vs non-aPL-N intra renal involvement: sCr= 1.9 [1.2-2.0] vs 0.98 [0.6-1.2] mg/dL; 24-hours proteinuria= 0.5 [0.4-0.5] vs 3.5 [1.9-3.9] g/24h. Conclusions The present work highlights the importance of conducting appropriate renal study in PAPS patients with renal biopsy, if needed, even in presence of mild IUAs. It underscores that aPL-N, being part of the peculiar microvascular APS subset, may require a treatment strategy beyond anticoagulation.[2] From nephrologists’ perspective, routinary screening for aPL during the assessment of glomerulopathies could be relevant, given the aPL prognostic role in the development of subsequent related events. References: [1.] Barbhaiya M. 2023. [2.] Erkan D. 2021.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→