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

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_TORRICELLI_Antiphospholipid_syndrome_damage_index_DIAPS_distinct_longterm_kinetic_2020.PDF.pdf (352.42 KB)
Citações na Scopus
22
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2020
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Autores
Citação
LUPUS, v.29, n.3, p.256-262, 2020
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
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.
Palavras-chave
Damage, Damage Index for APS, antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/35649
Referências
  1. Abreu MM, 2015, AUTOIMMUN REV, V14, P401, DOI 10.1016/j.autrev.2015.01.002
  2. Alba P, 2016, CURR RHEUMATOL REP, V18, DOI 10.1007/s11926-015-0556-6
  3. Amezcua-Guerra LM, 2016, LUPUS, V25, P671, DOI 10.1177/0961203315622825
  4. Amigo MC, 2015, LUPUS, V24, P927, DOI 10.1177/0961203315576858
  5. Ansell J, 2004, CHEST, V126, p204S, DOI 10.1378/chest.126.3_suppl.204S
  6. Barbhaiya M, 2013, J RHEUMATOL, V40, P89, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.120873
  7. Bruce IN, 2015, ANN RHEUM DIS, V74, P1706, DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205171
  8. Cervera R, 2009, LUPUS, V18, P889, DOI 10.1177/0961203309106832
  9. Dall'Ara F, 2014, LUPUS, V23, P1255, DOI 10.1177/0961203314534308
  10. Erkan D, 2000, J RHEUMATOL, V27, P2817
  11. Feinstein A. R., 1987, PSYCHOL MED, V18, p[272, 248]
  12. Gergianaki I, 2018, FRONT MED-LAUSANNE, V5, DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00161
  13. Gladman D, 1996, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V39, P363, DOI 10.1002/art.1780390303
  14. Gladman DD, 2000, J RHEUMATOL, V27, P373
  15. Goncalves MJ, 2015, LUPUS, V24, P256, DOI 10.1177/0961203314555172
  16. Grika EP, 2012, J RHEUMATOL, V39, P516, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.110800
  17. Hochberg MC, 1997, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V40, P1725, DOI 10.1002/art.1780400928
  18. Legge A, 2016, J RHEUMATOL, V43, P1050, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.150985
  19. Miyakis S, 2006, J THROMB HAEMOST, V4, P295, DOI 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x
  20. Pengo V, 2010, J THROMB HAEMOST, V8, P237, DOI 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03674.x
  21. Ruiz-Irastorza G, 2004, ARCH INTERN MED, V164, P77, DOI 10.1001/archinte.164.1.77
  22. RUMP JA, 1991, RHEUMATOL INT, V10, P255, DOI 10.1007/BF02274889
  23. Sangle NA, 2011, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V135, P1092, DOI 10.5858/2010-0325-RSR.1
  24. Sciascia S, 2012, J THROMB HAEMOST, V10, P2512, DOI 10.1111/jth.12014
  25. Shah NM, 1998, LUPUS, V7, P3, DOI 10.1191/096120398678919624
  26. Taraborelli M, 2017, J RHEUMATOL, V44, P1165, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.161364
  27. Vlachoyiannopoulos PG, 2013, J RHEUMATOL, V40, P90, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.120976
  28. Zuily S, 2015, LUPUS, V24, P1161, DOI 10.1177/0961203315580871

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCM
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/17
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03