Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Independent validation of the antiphospholipid score for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome
  1. Savino Sciascia1,2,
  2. Maria Laura Bertolaccini1,
  3. Dario Roccatello2,
  4. Munther A Khamashta1,3
  1. 1Lupus Research Unit, The Rayne Institute, Division of Women's Health, King's College, London, UK
  2. 2Centro di Ricerche di Immunopatologia e Documentazione su Malattie Rare (CMID), Università di Torino, Torino, Italy
  3. 3Louise Coote Lupus Unit, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Munther A Khamashta, Lupus Research Unit, The Rayne Institute, Division of Women's Health, King's College London, 4th Floor Lambeth Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK; munther.khamashta{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a heterogeneous entity with a wide variation in clinical course and laboratory profile. It is accepted that the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) confers a higher risk for both thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity, but quantifying such a risk is still a challenge. As a consequence, clinicians are unable to tailor the treatment according to the risk.

Recently, Otomo et al 1 developed and validated the so-called ‘antiphospholipid score’ (aPL-S) by testing multiple aPL and evaluating the aPL-S efficacy for the diagnosis of APS and predictive value for thrombosis. This score was shown to be a useful quantitative index for diagnosing APS and to be valuable as a predictive marker for thrombosis in autoimmune diseases.

In order to independently validate the aPL-S, we …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests All authors declare not to have any financial or other relationships that might lead to a conflict of interest. This manuscript has been read and approved by all authors. The manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the Guy’s and St Thomas’ Ethics Committee and all patients involved in this study gave their written consent.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.