Antiphospholipid syndrome damage index (DIAPS): distinct long-term kinetic in primary antiphospholipid syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome related to systemic lupus erythematosus.

Autor: Torricelli AK; Rheumatology Division - Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, Brazil., Ugolini-Lopes MR; Rheumatology Division - Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, Brazil., Bonfá E; Rheumatology Division - Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, Brazil., Andrade D; Rheumatology Division - Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Lupus [Lupus] 2020 Mar; Vol. 29 (3), pp. 256-262. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 27.
DOI: 10.1177/0961203320901598
Abstrakt: Background: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired thrombophilia that affects young productive individuals, with permanent damage and negative impact on quality of life. Recently, a damage index specific for APS (DIAPS) was developed. There are, however, no data regarding the comparison of its performance and long-term damage in primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS) and APS related to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE; APS + SLE). The primary purpose of this study was therefore to compare the long-term damage in patients with these conditions.
Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a single tertiary center cohort followed for approximately 10 years using a standardized prospective electronic chart database. Fifty consecutive PAPS patients age matched with 50 APS+SLE patients were consecutively selected for the study, and DIAPS was calculated once a year during follow-up. Long-term damage and damage kinetics in both groups were compared.
Results: PAPS and APS + SLE had comparable age (47.10 ± 12.4 vs. 44.04 ± 10.80 years; p  = 0.19) and time of follow-up (9.40 ± 3.60 vs. 10.94 ± 4.50 years; p  = 0.06). At diagnosis, PAPS had higher DIAPS than APS + SLE (1.72 ± 1.17 vs. 0.82 ± 0.96; p  < 0.001). At the end of the 10-year follow-up, both groups presented comparable mean damage scores (2.04 ± 1.50 vs. 2.24 ± 1.61; p  = 0.52). The damage increment throughout the observation period for PAPS was solely 35%, whereas for APS + SLE it was gradual, persistent and reached 139% at the end of follow-up, with a total damage increment for PAPS lower than APS + SLE (0.43 ± 0.30 vs. 1.22 ± 1.24; p  < 0.001). Of note, the frequency of individuals who acquired damage was lower in PAPS than in APS + SLE (32% vs. 71%; p  < 0.001). PAPS also had a longer delay in diagnosis than APS + SLE (4.00 ± 4.20 vs. 2.54 ± 3.05 years; p  = 0.04). This delay was positively correlated with a higher damage score at diagnosis ( r  = 0.36, p  < 0.001) in all groups.
Conclusion: We identified a distinct pattern of damage in PAPS and APS related to SLE. Damage in PAPS is an early event, while APS+SLE is associated with higher long-term damage, with a striking increment of damage along the follow-up. A diagnosis delay is correlated with higher damage scores. Damage surveillance therefore requires different approaches for these two conditions.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje