Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing Update

Staff  |  Issue: January 2012  |  January 13, 2012

Among other issues relevant to antibody testing, the use of monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies for assay calibration has been a source of controversy. A wet workshop organized at APLA 2010 compared the performance characteristics of currently available monoclonal antibodies: HCAL (IgG) and EY2C9 (IgM). This study identified large variability in results obtained with the use of these monoclonal antibodies, currently distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.11 Also, there are no guidelines available concerning the preparation and cross-validation of secondary calibrators or the evaluation of available preparations. On careful review of the data, the task force recommended that levels of secondary calibrators should be carefully defined following accepted procedures prior to use. The task force also decided that any aCL tests using monoclonal preparation as a calibrator should report aCL titers in GPL/MPL units, a method currently used by the majority of laboratories worldwide.

The task force recommended an organized effort to evaluate further the performance of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies and to identify optimal candidates for standardization. Once the candidate source is identified, the standard should be established according to current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines to ensure its acceptance by regulatory authorities. Efforts focused on the development of international reference standards for IgG and IgM aCL and anti-β2GPI antibodies should be increased. In addition, a top priority of the task force will be to encourage all manufacturers to use the same calibrant material, whether human-derived polyclonal or monoclonal, so that this material can be designated as a WHO standard. This process could be facilitated by an internationally recognized organization. For the anti-β2GPI assay, there is no universal unit currently available. Therefore, the task force recommended the establishment of international units for measurement of anti-β2GPI antibodies. A work group has been assembled to carry out that objective, and a significant amount of work has already been completed.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Subgroup 2

Updated ISTH SCC guidelines on the use of LAC as a diagnosis of aPL antibodies incorporate a number of important issues. These issues include the following: definition of a “weak” LAC, as it is thought to be a confounding factor for diagnosis; false-positive screening assays secondary to the use of phospholipid-dilute reagents; embracing thrombin clotting time (TCT) and prothrombin time (PT) for the detection of LAC to determine the presence of heparin or warfarin interfering with test results; integrated testing systems; interpretative comments, as some factor inhibitors cause false-positive test results; and contacting reference laboratories for tests results and specific questions.12,13 Based on these considerations, the task force made recommendations described in Table 2 that were recently published.9

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:ConditionsOther Rheumatic ConditionsResearch RheumSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Tagged with:Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome (APS)Hughes SyndromelabsLupusResearchrheumatologistSystemic lupus erythematosus

Related Articles

    APS: What Rheumatologists Should Know about Hughes Syndrome

    February 17, 2016

    The problem that dogs the work of all of those treating patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the apparent lack of knowledge of the syndrome, both by the general public, as well as by swaths of the medical fraternity. Perhaps it was ever thus—a syndrome less than 40 years old could be described as new,…

    Why Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome Should Be On Your Radar

    February 1, 2014

    With a wide range of clinical manifestations and frequent occurrence among rheumatology patients, APS is one for rheumatologists to watch

    Put Hughes Syndrome on Your Radar

    April 1, 2007

    Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome is increasing. Here’s how to recognize and treat it

    A Catalyst for Antiphospholipid Syndrome Research

    March 18, 2011

    APS ACTION is coordinating international efforts to study this rare and potentially fatal autoimmune disorder

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences