Show simple item record

 
dc.contributorVall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus
dc.contributor.authorMarques Soares, Joana Rita
dc.contributor.authorEsteve-Valverde, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorAndrada, Catalina
dc.contributor.authorAlijotas-Reig, Jaume
dc.contributor.authorAnunciación-Llunell, Ariadna
dc.contributor.authorOčková, Monika
dc.contributor.authorPozuelo Ventura, Natalia
dc.contributor.authorMiro-Mur, Francesc A.
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-07T09:52:54Z
dc.date.available2025-10-07T09:52:54Z
dc.date.issued2025-07
dc.identifier.citationAnunciación-Llunell A, Marques-Soares J, Ockova M, Pozuelo N, Esteve-Valverde E, Andrada C, et al. The absence of standardization in antiphospholipid antibody testing may favor the use of 99th percentile cutoffs in antiphospholipid syndrome classification. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2025 Jul;9(5):102967.
dc.identifier.issn2475-0379
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11351/13801
dc.descriptionAnti-β2 glycoprotein I; Anticardiolipin; Antiphospholipid syndrome
dc.description.abstractBackground Classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) issued by the American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rhuematology necessitate a positivity for any of the 3 molecular targets: lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin G, or anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) immunoglobulin G, with the latter 2 requiring concentrations > 40 units. This specification implies having standardized and comparable calibration strategies to achieve proper patient classification. In the past, calibrator tests suffered from poor standardization; thus, the 99th percentile was established as the cutoff point. Objectives We aimed to find a balance between sensitivity and specificity in the laboratory criteria for patient enrollment in APS studies by harmonizing the 99th percentile and 40-unit threshold. Methods In a cohort of 250 healthy individuals, we tested aCL and aβ2GPI concentrations by 4 different methods: 3 colorimetric, standardized ELISA platforms and 1 chemiluminescence assay, to define the 99th percentile. We tested cross-reactivity of standardized calibrators between kits and how to implement better accuracy for patient enrollment in a cohort of 80 APS patients. Results We found that the 99th percentile was substantially <40-unit cutoff and observed considerable interkit variability in the determined cutoffs, which originated from the inadequate standardization of kit calibrators. In a second cohort of 80 APS patients, we estimated the accuracy of these different methods by comparing the 99th percentile and 40-unit cutoffs. For certain ELISA kits, using a fixed cutoff of 40 units instead of the 99th percentile decreased their sensitivity without increasing specificity, which affected patient classification and thus the number of patients eligible for APS studies. Testing with 2 ELISA platforms at the 99th percentile cutoff would improve patient eligibility. Conclusion Our survey suggests that in the absence of standardized calibrators for testing aCL or aβ2GPI, a cutoff point at the 99th percentile of 2 different ELISA kits should be adopted.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis;9(5)
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourceScientia
dc.subjectSíndrome antifosfolipídica - Classificació
dc.subjectImmunoglobulina G
dc.subjectProteïnes de la sang
dc.subject.meshAntiphospholipid Syndrome
dc.subject.mesh/classification
dc.subject.meshAntibodies, Antiphospholipid
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subject.meshImmunoglobulin G
dc.subject.meshbeta 2-Glycoprotein I
dc.titleThe absence of standardization in antiphospholipid antibody testing may favor the use of 99th percentile cutoffs in antiphospholipid syndrome classification
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rpth.2025.102967
dc.subject.decssíndrome antifosfolípido
dc.subject.decs/clasificación
dc.subject.decsanticuerpos antifosfolípidos
dc.subject.decssensibilidad y especificidad
dc.subject.decsinmunoglobulina G
dc.subject.decsbeta 2-glicoproteína I
dc.relation.publishversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2025.102967
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.audienceProfessionals
dc.contributor.organismesInstitut Català de la Salut
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Anunciación-Llunell A, Ockova M, Pozuelo N, Andrada C, Miró-Mur FA] Grup de Recerca de Malalties Sistèmiques, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. [Marques-Soares J] Grup de Recerca de Malalties Sistèmiques, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. Servei de Medicina Interna, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. [Esteve-Valverde E] Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain. [Alijotas-Reig J] Grup de Recerca de Malalties Sistèmiques, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. Servei de Medicina Interna, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
dc.identifier.pmid40761700
dc.identifier.wos001542144600001
dc.relation.projectidinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/PEICTI2021-2023/PI24%2F01302
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record