Introduction: Obstetric complications are more common in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than in the general population. Objective: To assess pregnancy outcomes in women with SLE from the RELESSER cohort after 12 years of follow-up. Methods: A multicentre retrospective observational study was conducted. In addition to data from the RELESSER register, data were collected on obstetric/gynae-cological variables and treatments received. The number of term pregnancies was compared between women with pregnancies before and after the diagnosis of SLE. Further, clinical and laboratory characteristics were compared between women with pregnancies before and after the diagnosis, on the one hand, and with and without complications during pregnancy, on the other. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify factors potentially associated with com-plications during pregnancy. Results: A total of 809 women were included, with 1869 pregnancies, of which 1395 reached term. Women with pregnancies before the diagnosis of SLE had more pregnancies (2.37 vs 1.87) and a higher rate of term pregnancies (76.8% vs 69.8%, p < 0.001) compared to those with pregnancies after the diagnosis. Women with pregnancies before the diagnosis were diagnosed at an older age (43.4 vs 34.1 years) and had more comorbidities. No differences were observed between the groups with pregnancies before and after diagnosis in antibody profile, including anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm, anti-Ro, anti-La, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin or anti-beta-2-glycoprotein. Overall, 114 out of the 809 women included in the study experienced complications during pregnancy, including miscarriage, preeclampsia/eclampsia, foetal death, and/or preterm birth. Women with complications had higher rates of antiphospholipid syndrome (40.5% vs 9.9%, p < 0.001) and higher rates of positivity for IgG anticardiolipin (33.9% vs 21.3%, p = 0.005), IgG anti-beta 2 glycoprotein (26.1% vs 14%, p = 0.007), and IgM anti-beta 2 glycoprotein (26.1% vs 16%, p = 0.032) antibodies, although no differences were found regarding lupus anticoagulant. Among the treatments received, only heparin was more commonly used by women with pregnancy complications. We did not find differences in corticosteroid or hydroxychloroquine use. Conclusions: The likelihood of term pregnancy is higher before the diagnosis of SLE. In our cohort, positivity for anticardiolipin IgG and anti-beta-2-glycoprotein IgG/ IgM, but not lupus anticoagulant, was associated with a higher risk of poorer pregnancy outcomes.

Background. The diagnostic accuracy of bone scintigraphy (BS) increases with SPECT/CT imaging. It would therefore be appropriate to reassess the diagnostic utility of scintigraphy in sacroiliitis with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of MRI, SPECT/CT and a combination of both techniques in sacroiliitis, and to evaluate the correlation between quantitative SPECT/CT indices and quantitative MRI inflammatory lesion scores. Methods. Thirty-one patients with active SpA and 22 patients with inflammatory low back pain underwent MRI and SPECT/ CT of the sacroiliac joints. The diagnostic accuracy of both techniques was calculated using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard. The correlation between MRI and SPECT/CT was calculated by comparing the SPECT/CT activity indices and the Berlin/ SPARCC scoring systems for MRI. Results. The sensitivity and specificity values in quantitative SPECT/CT, taking the sacroiliac/promontory ratio of >1.36 as the cut-off value, were close to those from MRI published in the literature. The combination of both techniques increased sensitivity while maintaining high specificity. There was a moderate correlation between SPECT/CT and MRI total scores. This correlation was improved by using solely the MRI inflammation scores. Conclusion. Quantitative SPECT/CT showed better diagnostic accuracy than planar scintigraphy and showed a moderate correlation with MRI scores in active sacroiliitis. The combination of both tests increased the diagnostic accuracy. Quantitative SPECT/CT could play a relevant role in the diagnosis of active sacroiliitis in patients with high a suspicion of SpA and a negative/inconclusive MRI test or in patients with whom MRI studies cannot be carried out. Keywords. Diagnoses. Sacroiliitis. Spondyloarthritis. Bone scintigraphy. Magnetic resonance imaging.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia, is characterised by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. The 16th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force on APS Treatment Trends reviewed the current status with regard to existing and novel treatment trends for APS, which is the focus of this Task Force report. The report addresses current treatments and developments since the last report, on the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with APS, antiplatelet agents, adjunctive therapies (hydroxychloroquine, statins and vitamin D), targeted treatment including rituximab, belimumab, and anti-TNF agents, complement inhibition and drugs based on peptides of beta-2-glycoprotein I. In addition, the report summarises potential new players, including coenzyme Q10, adenosine receptor agonists and adenosine potentiation. In each case, the report provides recommendations for clinicians, based on the current state of the art, and suggests a clinical research agenda. The initiation and development of appropriate clinical studies requires a focus on devising suitable outcome measures, including a disease activity index, an optimal damage index, and a specific quality of life index.

Background: The current treatment to prevent pregnancy morbidity (PM) associated with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) is based on the use of low dose aspirin and low molecular weight heparin (henceforth defined as standard of care (SoC) treatment). Despite the SoC, up to 30% of women with aPL continue to have pregnancy complications. The global antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) score (GAPSS) is a tool to quantify the risk for the aPL-related clinical manifestations. In this study, we investigated the individual clinical response to SoC in women with aPL after stratifying them according to their GAPSS. Methods: One-hundred-fourty-three women (352 pregnancies) with aPL ever pregnant treated with SoC therapy were included. The patients GAPSS was then grouped according to the patients' GAPSS into low risk (< 6), medium risk (6-11), and high risk (>= 12). Results: The live birth rate was 70.5% (248 out of the 352 pregnancies), 45 patients (31%) experienced at least one event of PM, defined as early or late. Patients were stratified according to GAPSS values, in order to identify a low risk group (GAPSS <6, n = 72), a medium risk group (GAPSS 6-11, n = 66) and a high risk group (GAPSS >= 12, n = 5). When considering patients who ever experienced any PM while treated with SoC, all patients in the high risk group experienced PM, while patients in the medium group had a significant higher rate of PM when compared to the low risk group [29 (43.9%) patients V.s. 11 (15.3%), respectively; p < 0.001]. When analysing the number of pregnancies in the three groups, patients in the high risk group had significantly lower live birth rates, when compared to the other groups [11 (40.7%) live births vs. 100 (62.1%) and 137 (82.5%), respectively; p < 0.05]. Furthermore, patients with medium risk group also had significantly lower live birth rates, when compared to the lower risk group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: GAPSS might be a valuable tool for to identify patients with a higher likelihood of response to SoC. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective: The difficulty in diagnosis and the spectrum of clinical manifestations that can determine the choice of treatment for primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) has fostered the development of recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER), based on the best possible evidence. These recommendations can serve as a reference for rheumatologists and other specialists involved in the management of APS. Methods: A panel of four rheumatologists, a gynaecologist and a haematologist with expertise in APS was created, previously selected by the SER through an open call or based on professional merits. The stages of the work were: identification of the key areas for drafting the document, analysis and synthesis of the scientific evidence (using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [ SIGN] levels of evidence) and formulation of recommendations based on this evidence and formal assessment or reasoned judgement techniques (consensus techniques). Results: 46 recommendations were drawn up, addressing five main areas: diagnosis and evaluation, measurement of primary thromboprophylaxis, treatment for APS or secondary thromboprophylaxis, treatment for obstetric APS and special situations. These recommendations also include the role of novel oral anticoagulants, the problem of recurrences or the key risk factors identified in these subjects. This document reflects the first 21, referring to the areas of: diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of primary APS. The document provides a table of recommendations and treatment algorithms. Conclusions: An update of the SER recommendations on APS is presented. This document corresponds to part I, related to diagnosis, evaluation and treatment. These recommendations are considered tools for decision-making for clinicians, taking into consideration both the decision of the physician experienced in APS and the patient. A part II has also been prepared, which addresses aspects related to obstetric SAF and special situations. Published by Elsevier Espalia, S.L.U.

Objective: The difficulty in diagnosis and the spectrum of clinical manifestations that can determine the choice of treatment for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) has fostered the development of recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER), based on the best possible evidence. These recommendations can serve as a reference for rheumatologists and other specialists involved in the management of APS. Methods: A panel of 4 rheumatologists, a gynaecologist and a haematologist with expertise in APS was created, previously selected by the SER through an open call or based on professional merits. The stages of the work were: identification of the key areas for the document elaboration, analysis and synthesis of the scientific evidence (using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN levels of evidence) and formulation of recommendations based on this evidence and formal assessment or reasoned judgement techniques (consensus techniques). Results: Forty-six recommendations were drawn up, addressing 5 main areas: diagnosis and evaluation, measurement of primary thromboprophylaxis, treatment for APS or secondary thromboprophylaxis, treatment for obstetric APS and special situations. These recommendations also include the role of novel oral anticoagulants, the problem of recurrences or the key risk factors identified in these subjects. This document reflects the last 25, referring to the areas of: obstetric APS and special situations. The document provides a table of recommendations and treatment algorithms. Conclusions: Update of SER recommendations on APS is presented. This document corresponds to part II, related to obstetric SAF and special situations. These recommendations are considered tools for decisionmaking for clinicians, taking into consideration both the decision of the physician experienced in APS and the patient. A part I has also been prepared, which addresses aspects related to diagnosis, evaluation and treatment. Published by Elsevier Espalia, S.L.U.

Objective This article aims to analyse the rate of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) negativisation in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and to evaluate potential new clinical manifestations after negativisation and/or aPL fluctuations in a long-term follow-up. Methods Inclusion criteria are (1) any patients with an APS diagnosis according to the current Sydney criteria and (2) patients in whom aPL negativisation occurred. aPL negativisation was defined as repeated aPL measurements on at least two consecutive occasions at least 12 weeks apart, with a follow-up of at least 1 year since aPL first turned negative. Results Out of 259 APS patients, a total of 23 patients (8.9%) met the inclusion criteria for persistent aPL negativisation. Patients were followed-up for 14.4 +/- 8.1 years, experienced aPL negativisation after a mean of 5.3 +/- 3.5 years and were followed-up after experiencing the aPL negativisation for a mean of 7.6 +/- 5.8 years. Seventeen patients (73.9%) presented with thrombotic APS, 2 with pregnancy morbidity (8.7%) and 4 (17.4%) with both. Most of the patients (18; 78.3%) had a single aPL positivity, 5 (21.7%) double, while no triple aPL positivity was observed. At the time of data collection, after aPL negativisation, anticoagulation was stopped in 8 patients with previous thrombotic venous event (8/21, 38%) according to the treating physicians' judgements. None of the patients experienced any recurrent thrombotic event during the follow-up period after their aPL negativisation. Conclusion In our patient cohort consisting of 259 patients with definitive APS, we observed over a mean observation period of > 5 years, that aPL negativisation occurred in approximately 9% of patients. Negativisation occurred most often in patients who were previously found to be positive for only one aPL.