Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (GAPSS) in patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome

Stratification of patients into groups of high and low risk of adverse outcome is necessary for timely and early prevention of the disease, as well as the selection of adequate therapy.
Objective: to validate the global risk scale for the development of clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (GAPSS) in a cohort of patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS).
Material and methods. The study included 64 patients with PAPS. Data on clinical manifestations, traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and antiphospholipid antibody profile were collected. GAPSS values were calculated for each patient by summing the scores corresponding to risk factors as follows: 3 points – for hyperlipidemia; 1 point – for arterial hypertension; 5 points – for antibodies to cardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM; 4 points – for antibodies to â2-glycoprotein 1 (anti-â2GP1) IgG/IgM and 3 points – for antibodies to the phosphatidylserine-prothrombin complex (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM.
Results and discussion. GAPSS indicators were comparable in women and men with PAPS – 12.0 [9.0; 13.0] points. GAPSS values did not differ in patients with thrombosis and obstetric pathology: in thrombosis they were 10.0±4.46 (range 0.0–14.0) points, in obstetric pathology – 9.26±5.08 (range 0.0–14.0) points.
The localization of thrombosis did not affect the GAPSS values, which reached 9.23±5.21 points in arterial thrombosis, 10.44±4.01 points in venous thrombosis, and 10.33±4.18 points in combined ones. Patients with recurrent thrombosis had higher GAPSS scores compared to patients without relapse: 8.19±5.25 points versus 11.00±3.65 points (p=0.01). There were no significant differences in GAPSS scores in obstetric pathology at different gestational ages.
GAPSS values ≥6 showed a higher risk of thrombosis recurrence: odds ratio 5.23 (95% CI 1.34–20.37). GAPSS scores ≥6 demonstrated the highest accuracy, with sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 66%, respectively. According to ROC analysis, the AUC value for GAPSS was 0.675 (95% CI 0.542–0.808; p=0.01).
Conclusion. The use of GAPSS makes it possible to identify patients at increased risk of recurrent thrombosis. GAPSS scores ≥6 have high sensitivity (72%) and specificity (66%), which can be used to stratify patients with PAPS into high and low risk groups for recurrent thrombosis.

1. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA. 2009 Dec 2;302(21):2345-52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1757.

2. Collins GS, Moons KGM. Comparing risk prediction models. BMJ. 2012 May 24; 344:e3186. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3186.

3. Otomo K, Atsumi T, Amengual O, et al. Efficacy of the antiphospholipid score for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome and its predictive value for thrombotic events. Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Feb;64(2):504-12. doi: 10.1002/art.33340.

4. Sciascia S, Bertolaccini ML, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA. Independent validation of the antiphospholipid score for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Jan;72(1):142-3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201985. Epub 2012 Jul 28.

5. Sciascia S, Cosseddu D, Montaruli B, et al. Risk Scale for the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Aug; 70(8):1517-8. doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.145177. Epub 2011 Mar 14.

6. Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, et al. GAPSS: the Global Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome Score. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Aug;52(8):1397-403. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes388. Epub 2013 Jan 12.

7. Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost. 2006 Feb;4(2):295-306. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x.

8. Aleksandrova EN, Novikov AA, Reshetnyak TM, et al. Antibodies to 2-glycoprotein 1 and antibodies to cardiolipin in antiphospholipid syndrome: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Klinicheskaya meditsina. 2003;(9): 25-31. (In Russ.).

9. Rebrova OYu. Statisticheskii analiz meditsinskikh dannykh. Primenenie paketa prikladnykh programm STATISTIC [Statistical analysis of medical data. Application of the STATISTICAL software package]. Moscow: MediaSfera; 2002.

10. Morozov SP. Clinical trials of software based on intelligent technologies (radiation diagnostics). Preprint № CDT-2019-1. In: Luchshie praktiki luchevoi i instrumental'noi diagnostiki [Best practices of radiation and instrumental diagnostics]. Issue 23. Moscow; 2019.

11. Reshetnyak TM. Antiphospholipid syndrome: diagnosis and clinical manifestations (lecture). Nauchno-prakticheskaya revmatologiya. 2014;52(1):56-71. (In Russ.).

12. Ambrozic A, Avicin T, Ichikawa K, et al. Anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Immunol. 2002 Jul;14(7):823-30. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxf043.

13. Giron-Gonzalez JA, Garcia del Rio E, Rodriguez C, et al. Antiphospholipid syndrome and asymptomatic carriers of antiphospholipid antibody: prospective analysis of 404 individuals. J Rheumatol. 2004 Aug;31(8): 1560-7.

14. Pengo V, Biasiolo A, Gresele P, et al. Survey of lupus anticoagulant diagnosis by central evaluation of positive plasma samples. J Thromb Haemost. 2007 May;5(5):925-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02454.x.

15. Tektonidou MG, Laskari K, Panagiotakos DB, Moutsopoulos HM. Risk factors for thrombosis and primary thrombosis prevention in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with or without antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Jan 15; 61(1):29-36. doi: 10.1002/art.24232.

16. Ruiz-Irastorza G, Egurbide MV, Ugalde J, Aguirre C. High impact of antiphospholipid syndrome on irreversible organ damage and survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Intern Med. 2004 Jan 12; 164(1):77-82. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.1.77.

17. Zuily S, Rat AC, Regnault V, et al. Impairment of quality of life in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Lupus. 2015 Oct; 24(11):1161-8. doi: 10.1177/0961203315580871. Epub 2015 Apr 10.

18. Nasonov EL, editor. Antifosfolipidnyi sindrom [Antiphospholipid syndrome]. Moscow: Litterra; 2004.

19. Vianna JL, Khamashta MA, Ordi-Ros J, et al. Comparison of the primary and secondary antiphospholipid syndrome: a European Multicenter Study of 114 patients. Am J Med. 1994 Jan;96(1):3-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90108-2.

20. Derksen RH, de Groot PG, Kater L, Nieuwenhuis HK. Patients with antiphospholipid antibodies and venous thrombosis should receive long term anticoagulant treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993 Sep;52(9):689-92. doi: 10.1136/ard.52.9.689.

21. Oku K, Amengual O, Yasuda S, Atsumi T. How to Identify High-Risk APS Patients: Clinical Utility and Predictive Values of Validated Scores. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017 Aug; 19(8):51. doi: 10.1007/s11926-017-0674-4.

22. Sciascia S, Cuadrado MJ, Sanna G, et al. Thrombotic risk assessment in systemic lupus erythematosus: validation of the global antiphospholipid syndrome score in a prospective cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Dec;66 (12):1915-20. doi: 10.1002/acr.22388.

23. Sciascia S, Sanna G, Murru V, et al. The global anti-phospholipid syndrome score in primary APS. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Jan;54(1):134-8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu307. Epub 2014 Aug 13.

24. Oku K, Amengual O, Bohgaki T, et al. An independent validation of the Global AntiPhospholipid Syndrome Score in a Japanese cohort of patients with autoimmune diseases. Lupus. 2015 Jun;24(7):774-5. doi: 10.1177/0961203314561284. Epub 2014 Nov 28.

25. Zuo Y, Li C, Karp DR, Li Z. Clinical and epidemiological correlates of the adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score in a large cohort of chinese APS patients. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(suppl 10):2183.

26. Radin M, Sciascia S, Erkan D, et al; APS ACTION. The adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) and the risk of recurrent thrombosis: Results from the APS ACTION cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Dec;49(3):464-8. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.04.009. Epub 2019 May 2.

27. Fernandez Mosteirin N, Saez Comet L, Salvador Osuna C, et al. Independent validation of the adjusted GAPSS: Role of thrombotic risk assessment in the real-life setting. Lupus. 2017 Oct;26(12):1328-32. doi: 10.1177/0961203317703493. Epub 2017 Apr 7.

28. Barinotti A, Radin M, Cecchi I, et al. Assessing the cardiovascular risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: QRISK and GAPSS scores head-to-head. Int J Cardiol. 2022 Sep 15;363:185-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.06.040. Epub 2022 Jun 14.

29. Schreiber K, Radin M, Cecchi I, et al. The global antiphospholipid syndrome score in women with systemic lupus erythematosus and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2021 Sep-Oct;39(5):1071-6. doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/c96ief. Epub 2020 Nov 12.

30. Del Barrio-Longarela S, Martinez-Taboada VM, Blanco-Olavarri P, et al. Does Adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) Predict the Obstetric Outcome in Antiphospholipid Antibody Carriers? A Single-Center Study. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2022 Oct;63(2):297-310. doi: 10.1007/s12016-021-08915-9. Epub 2021 Dec 15.

31. Garcia L, Velloso MS, Martire MV, et al. Validation of the adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score in systemic lupus erythematosus patients in Argentina. Lupus. 2020 Dec;29(14):1866-72. doi: 10.1177/0961203320960814. Epub 2020 Oct 7.

32. Devreese KM. Standardization of antiphospholipid antibody assays. Where do we stand? Lupus. 2012 Jun;21(7):718-21. doi: 10.1177/0961203312439335.

33. Willis R, Lakos G, Harris EN. Standardization of antiphospholipid antibody testing – historical perspectives and ongoing initiatives. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2014 Mar;40(2):172-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1364207. Epub 2014 Jan 27.