Detection of non‐criteria autoantibodies in women without apparent causes for pregnancy loss

• DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22994
• Publication Date: 2019-08-12T03:45:55Z
• Authors: Hongyuan Zhu; Meng Wang; Ying Dong; Honghai Hu; Qiaoli Zhang; Chen Qiao; Xin Xie; Fei Fan; Jiazi Zeng; Yan Jia; Lu Chen; Jingrui Liu; Lin Li; Yanhong Zhai; Zhen Zhao; Min Shen; Zheng Cao
• Keywords: Adult; Abortion, Habitual; Sensitivity and Specificity; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; ROC Curve; Pregnancy; Case-Control Studies; Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor; Odds Ratio; Humans; Female; Research Articles; Autoantibodies

AbstractBackgroundSome of the non‐criteria autoantibodies, especially non‐conventional antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies, were present with high prevalence in sporadic miscarriages and recurrent pregnant loss. However, whether these autoantibodies are associated with miscarriage patients without apparent causes remain unclear.MethodsThe subjects were recruited from the female patients visiting the Infertility Center at the Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital from January 2017 to March 2018. The women who experienced one sporadic miscarriage (n = 89) or recurrent pregnancy loss (n = 125) were enrolled. The control participants (n = 59) were those women with normal pregnancy history and with no miscarriage or thrombosis experience. The collected serum specimens from above patients and controls were subjected to the 13 non‐criteria autoantibody examinations, targeting non‐conventional phospholipids, thyroid, sperm, endometrial, and anti‐nuclear antigens.ResultsWhen compared with the controls, the following non‐criteria antibodies stood out in present study with significantly increased frequency and were listed in the order of decreasing positive rates: aPE IgM (40.0%), ANA (15.2%), aEM IgG (13.6%), aPE IgG (12.8%), and aPT IgM (10.4%). Except for ANA, the presence of aPE IgM, aEM IgG, aPE IgG, and aPT IgM was not associated with positivity of LA tests. In receiver operating characteristic analyses, the combined aPE IgG and aEM IgG biomarker panel had the best discriminating power between miscarriage patients and healthy controls.ConclusionOur findings suggested that the non‐criteria could be included as part of the pregnancy loss evaluation when apparent causes are absent, and the conventional aPLs tests failed to provide interpretations.