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
Review
. 2025 Feb;23(2):731-744.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2024.10.022. Epub 2024 Nov 5.

An update on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the ISTH-SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Affiliations
Review

An update on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: guidance from the ISTH-SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies

Katrien M J Devreese et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) diagnosis is dependent on the accurate detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) remain the cornerstone of the laboratory part of APS diagnosis. In the 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) APS classification criteria, the type of laboratory parameters remain essentially unchanged compared with the updated Sapporo classification criteria, and aCL and aβ2GPI measurement are still restricted to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with moderate and high titer aPL thresholds defined as 40 and 80 Units, respectively, and a cutoff calculated by the 99th percentile has been abandoned. We must differentiate between classification criteria and assessment of aPL in clinical care. Classification criteria are strict and meant for participant inclusion in studies and trials to study homogeneous populations of patients. In contrast, laboratory detection for APS diagnosis in daily practice is broader, meant to diagnose each APS patient to optimize their management. Nowadays, there is increasing use of measurement of aPL by methods other than ELISAs , the semiquantitative reporting of titers is a matter of debate, as well as the role of the isotypes immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA, and the role of other aPL, such as antiphosphatidylserine (aPS)/prothrombin (PT) antibodies. Patients diagnosed with the disease may or may not fulfill the classification criteria, and inappropriate use of classification criteria may lead to mis(under)diagnosis. The aim of this guidance, based on literature and expert opinion, is to provide guidance recommendations for laboratory workers and clinicians on routine diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected APS.

Keywords: anti-β2-glycoprotein I; anticardiolipin; antiphospholipid syndrome; diagnosis; lupus anticoagulant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interests K.M.J.D. has no conflicts of interest; M.L.B. is supported by the King’s British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence Award RE/18/2/34213; D.W.B. reports a research award from UCB Biopharma; H.C. has no conflicts of interest and reports, outside the submitted work, consultancy fees from UCB Biopharma and lecture fees from Technoclone paid to University College London Hospitals Charity, and advisory board member at Roche and Argenx; D.E. has no conflict of interest regarding this project and reports outside this project research support from GlaxoSmithKline, American College of Rheumatology & European League Against Rheumatism, Exagen, and The National Institutes of Health, is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Chugai, and is a speaker for GlaxoSmithKline; B.d.L. is an employee of Synapse Research Foundation and advisor for Diagnostica Stago; E.J.F. reports no conflicts of interest; T.L.O. has received consulting fees from Instrumentation Laboratory and Sanofi, and research support from Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; V.P. reports participation in the advisory board of Daiichi-Sankyo and Bayer HealthCare and received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer HealthCare, and Werfen Group; D.W. reports personal fees, outside the submitted work, from Alexion and GlaxoSmithKline and support to attend scientific meetings from Bayer Healthcare and Leo Pharma.

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources