Assessment and comparison of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria with the revised Sapporo criteria

İbrahim Vasi,Rıza Can Kardaş,Mustafa Ekici,Derya Yıldırım,Burcugül Kaya,Rahime Duran,Hazan Karadeniz,Aslıhan Avanoğlu Güler,Hamit Küçük,Berna Göker,Şule Apraş Bilgen,Abdurrahman Tufan,Mehmet Akif Öztürk,Abdulsamet Erden
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.15175
2024-05-09
International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases
Abstract:Assessment and comparison of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria with the revised Sapporo criteria. Objective To analyze antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)‐positive patients using the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria and compare the revised Sapporo criteria and the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria and evaluate whether the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria provide added value over the revised Sapporo criteria. Methods In this descriptive study, 94 aPL‐positive patients (with or without APS diagnosis) were identified from two hospital‐based registries (Gazi and Hacettepe University). Patients were classified into four groups to compare both criteria sets. These four groups are as follows: (1) patients classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; (2) patients classified with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; (3) patients classified with both two criteria sets; and (4) patients classified with neither two criteria set. Results Of the 94 patients, 11 were classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; one with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; 52 with both criteria sets; and 30 with neither set of criteria. For these 94 patients, the operating characteristics of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria, using the revised Sapporo criteria as the gold standard, the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS entry criteria demonstrated 100% sensitivity, and the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria demonstrated 98% specificity and 82.5% sensitivity. Conclusion The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing differences in clinical manifestations, such as early pregnancy loss without severe preeclampsia (PEC) and/or severe placental insufficiency (PI) and calls for a nuanced discussion on anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti‐beta 2‐glycoprotein‐I (anti‐β2GPI) immunoglobulin G (IgG) cutoff values.
rheumatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?