Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jul;66(7):927-30.
doi: 10.1136/ard.2006.067314. Epub 2007 Mar 2.

Assessment of the 2006 revised antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria

Affiliations

Assessment of the 2006 revised antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria

Mala Kaul et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To analyse antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody-positive patients using the 2006 revised antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria.

Methods: A descriptive study of 200 aPL-positive patients identified in a local, hospital-based registry, analysing demographic, clinical and aPL characteristics. Patients were analysed for (1) fulfillment of the 1999 original (Sapporo) and 2006 revised APS classification criteria; (2) non-criteria aPL features (for all aPL-positive patients, based on the 2006 revised criteria definitions); and (3) non-aPL thrombosis risk factors at the time of the clinical events (for patients with APS, based on the 2006 revised criteria stratifications).

Results: Of the 200 patients, 183 patients had sufficient data for analysis. Of these, 39 (21%) patients did not meet the laboratory requirement of the original 1999 criteria. Of 81 patients with APS who met the 1999 classification criteria, 47 (58%) also met the 2006 revised criteria. Of 63 asymptomatic (no vascular or pregnancy events) aPL-positive patients who met the laboratory requirement of the 1999 classification criteria, 38 (60%) also met the laboratory requirement of the 2006 revised criteria. More than 50% of the patients with APS with vascular events had identifiable non-aPL thrombosis risk factors at the time of clinical events.

Conclusions: Only 59% of the patients meeting the 1999 APS Sapporo classification criteria met the 2006 APS classification criteria. The revised criteria will have positive implications in APS research by way of limiting the inclusion of a heterogeneous group of patients and also by way of providing a risk-stratified approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Wilson W A, Gharavi A E, Koike T, Lockshin M D, Branch D W, Piette J C.et al International consensus statement on preliminary classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome: report of an international workshop. Arthritis Rheum 1999421309–1311. - PubMed
    1. Miyakis S, Lockshin M D, Atsumi T, Branch D C, Brey R L, Cervera R.et al International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost 20064295–306. - PubMed
    1. Brey R L, Chapman J, Levine S R, Ruiz‐Irastorza G, Derksen R H W M, Khamashta M.et al Stoke and the antiphospholipid syndrome: consensus meeting Taormina 2002. Lupus 200312508–513. - PubMed
    1. Roubey R A S, Buxton G, APSCORE Investigators The Antiphospholipid Syndrome Collaborative Registry (APSCORE): report on the first 546 subjects (abstract). Arthritis Rheum 200450S640
    1. Erkan D, Sammaritano L, Levy R, Harrison M J, Peterson M, Yazici Y.et al APLASA study update: primary thrombosis prevention in asymptomatic APL (+) patients with aspirin (ASA) [abstract]. Thromb Res 2004114P618

Publication types

Substances