Prevalence,incidence proportion and independent predictors of thromboembolic events in adults with antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Prevalence,incidence proportion and independent predictors of thromboembolic events in adults with antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis
To synthesize data on the prevalence, incidence proportion, and independent predictors of thromboembolism in adults with definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and those with ‘seronegative APS’.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis included relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 27 February 2022 retrieved through electronic database (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences) and hand searches. Data was synthesized narratively and through random-effects aggregate meta-analyses.
Results
We summarized data from 138 studies involving 21,963 adults with APS. The pooled point prevalence of ‘APS-classifying’ thromboembolic events in the definite APS population was 74.3% for ‘general thromboembolism’, 51.3% for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and 36.0% for arterial thromboembolism. The pooled period prevalence of catastrophic APS was 2.2% and that of recurrent events was 22.3% for ‘general thromboembolism’, 8.2% for arterial thromboembolism, and 14.3% for VTE. Pooled incidence proportions during definite APS follow-up were 20.4%, 15.2%, and 8.9% for ‘general thromboembolism’, arterial thromboembolism, and VTE, respectively. Based on very low to low level of evidence, lupus anticoagulant (LA) seropositivity and hypertension were major independent predictors of VTE and arterial thromboembolism, respectively. The pooled point prevalence of ‘APS-classifying’ thromboembolic events in the ‘seronegative APS’ population was 64.8% for ‘general thromboembolism’, 19.3% for arterial thromboembolism, and 31.9% for VTE.
Conclusions
We found a high burden of thromboembolism among adults with Sapporo and Sydney criteria-based APS and those with ‘seronegative APS’. Based on very low to low level of evidence, LA is potentially an independent predictor of VTE and hypertension an independent predictor of arterial thromboembolism. Additional studies with standard methods are needed to improve the existing prediction models for thromboembolism in individuals with APS.
WilsonWAGharaviAEKoikeT, et al.International consensus statement on preliminary classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome: report of an international workshop. Arthritis Rheum1999; 42(7): 1309–1311.
2.
MiyakisSLockshinMDAtsumiT, et al.International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost2006; 4(2): 295–306.
3.
SchoolingCMJonesHE. Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation. Emerg Themes Epidemiol2018; 15: 10.
4.
RahmanA. Management of antiphospholipid syndrome. Clin Rheumatol2020; 39: 2111–2114.
5.
GalliMLucianiDBertoliniG, et al.Anti–2-glycoprotein I, antiprothrombin antibodies, and the risk of thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood2003; 102(8): 2717–2723.
6.
ErkanDSciasciaSBertolacciniM, et al.Antiphospholipid syndrome alliance for clinical trials and international networking (APS ACTION): 10-Year update. Curr Rheumatol Rep2021; 23: 45.
7.
CroninMAGeorgeE. The why and how of the integrative review. Organ Res Methods2023; 26(1): 168–192.
8.
OrtelTLMelethSCatellierD, et al.Recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies and an initial venous or arterial thromboembolic event: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost2020; 18(9): 2274–2286.
9.
ZhaoKZhouPXuL, et al.Was antiphospholipid syndrome a risk factor of stroke? A systemic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Dis Markers2021; 2021: 4431907.
HughesGRVKhamashtaMA. Seronegative antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis2003; 62: 1127.
12.
Pires da RosaGBettencourtPRodriguez-PintoI, et al.“Non-criteria” antiphospholipid syndrome: a nomenclature proposal. Autoimmun Rev2020; 19(12): 102689.
13.
Rodriguez-GarciaVIoannouYFernandez-NebroA, et al.Examining the prevalence of non-criteria anti-phospholipid antibodies in patients with anti-phospholipid syndrome: a systematic review. Rheumatology2015; 54: 2042–2050.
14.
Kortright-MaldonadoKReyes-TorresBECabrera-LopezLS, et al.Navigating antiphospholipid syndrome: from personalized therapies to cutting-edge research. Rheumatol Adv Pract2025; 9(1): rkaf005.
15.
GarnerPHopewellSChandlerJ, et al.When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ2016; 354: i3507.
16.
EssoumaMNkeckJRNoubiapJJ. Epidemiology of thromboembolic events in children and adolescents with antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Reumatol Clin2024; 20(3): 155–161.
17.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
18.
Wilson Van VoorhisCRMorganBL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol2007; 3(2): 43–50.
19.
AshersonRACerveraRde GrootPG, et al.Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome: international consensus statement on classification criteria and treatment guidelines. Lupus2003; 12: 530–534.
20.
DevreeseKMJde GrootPGde LaatB, et al.Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation. J Throm Haemost2020; 18: 2828–2839.
21.
DevreeseKMJOrtelTLPengoV, et al.Laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost2018; 16(4): 809–813.
22.
LimperMde LeeuwKLelyAT, et al.Diagnosing and treating antiphospholipid syndrome: a consensus paper. Neth J Med2019; 77(03): 98–108.
23.
HowardAHowardDPJDaviesAH. Introduction to venous thromboembolism and prophylaxis. Phlebology2006; 21(21Suppl): 1–10.
24.
SacoRLKasnerSEBroderickJP, et al..An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2013; 44(7): 2064–2089.
25.
FreemanMFTukeyJW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat1950; 21: 607–611.
26.
BarkerTHStoneJCSearsK, et al.Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evid Synth2023; 21(3): 478–493.
27.
HigginsJThomasJChandlerJ. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed.John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
28.
RichardsonMGarnerPDoneganS. Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: a tutorial. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health2019; 7: 192–198.
29.
BaujatBMahéCPignonJP, et al.A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med2002; 21: 2641–2652.
30.
ViechtbauerWCheungMWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res. Syn Meth2010; 1: 112–125.
31.
GuyattGOxmanADSultanS, et al.GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin EPidemiol2013; 66: 151–157.
32.
YousefifardMShafieeA. Should the reporting certainty of evidence for meta-analysis of observational studies using GRADE be revisited?Int J Surg2023; 109: 129–130.
33.
IoannidisJPATrikalinosTA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ (Can Med Assoc J)2007; 176(8): 1091–1096.
34.
SpronkIKorevaarJCPoosR, et al.Calculating incidence rates and prevalence proportions: not as simple as it seems. BMC Public Health2019; 19: 512.
35.
ThieseMS. Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochem Med2014; 24(2): 199–210.
36.
Ruiz-IrastorzaGHuntBJKhamashtaMA. A systematic review of secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum2007; 57(8): 1487–1495.
37.
SuchmacherMGellerM. Disease frequency measures. Practical Biostatistics. 2nd ed. A Step-by-Step Approach for Evidence-Based Medicine.
38.
ValentineJCPigottTDRothsteinHR. How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. J Educ Behav Stat2010; 35(2): 215–247.
39.
KolaskiKLoganLRIoannidisJPA. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews. Syst Rev2023; 12: 96.
40.
GrantMJBoothA. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J2009; 26: 91–108.
41.
ChuBLiuMLeasEC, et al.Effect size reporting among prominent health journals: a case study of odds ratios. BMJ Evid Based Med2020; 26(4): 184.
42.
WellsGA. Commentary on controversy and debate 4 paper series: questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research. J Clin Epidemiol2022; 142: 268–270.
43.
RoumeliotisSD’ArrigoGTripepiG. The hazard ratio as a measure of effect in clinical trials of elderly populations: common pitfalls and misconceptions. Aging Clin Exp Res2021; 33(3): 505–511.
44.
MedinaGCimé AkéEAVera-LastraO, et al.Damage index for antiphospholipid syndrome during long-term follow-up: correlation between organ damage accrual and quality of life. Lupus2021; 30(1): 96–102.
45.
de SouzaAWSilvaNPde CarvalhoJF, et al.Impact of hypertension and hyperhomocysteinemia on arterial thrombosis in primary antiphospholipid syndrome. Lupus2007; 16(10): 782–787.
46.
SayarZMollRIsenbergD, et al.Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a practical guide to diagnosis and management. Thromb Res2021; 198: 213–221.
47.
Pires da RosaGFerreiraESousa-PintoB, et al.Comparison of non-criteria antiphospholipid syndrome with definite antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review. Front Immunol2022; 13: 967178.
48.
RoachREJCannegieterSCLijferingWM. Differential risks in men and women for first and recurrent venous thrombosis: the role of genes and environment. J Thromb Haemost2014; 12(10): 1593–1600.
49.
WendelboeAMRaskobGE. Global burden of thrombosis: Epidemiologic aspects. Circ Res2016; 118(9): 1340–1347.
50.
ColucciGTsakirisDA. Thrombophilia screening revisited: an issue of personalized medicine. J Thromb Thrombolysis2020; 49: 618–629.
51.
AttachaipanichTAungsusiripongAPiriyakhuntornP, et al.Antithrombotic therapy in antiphospholipid syndrome with arterial thrombosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Med2023; 10: 1196800.
52.
MittalPQuattrocchiGTohidi-EsfahaniI, et al.Antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid antibodies, and stroke. Stroke2023; 18(4): 383–391.
53.
TektonidouMG. Cardiovascular disease risk in antiphospholipid syndrome: thrombo-inflammation and atherothrombosis. J Autoimmun2022; 128: 102813.
54.
KarakasisPLefkouEPamporisK, et al.Risk of subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and subjects with antiphospholipid antibody positivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol2023; 48: 101672.
55.
KhairaniCDBejjaniAPiazzaG, et al.Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndromes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol2023; 81(1): 16–30.
56.
ChernyshINNagaswamiCKosolapovaS, et al.The distinctive structure and composition of arterial and venous thrombi and pulmonary emboli. Sci Rep2020; 10: 5112.
57.
GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol2021; 20: 795–820.
58.
FigtreeGAVernonSTHarmerJA, et al.Clinical Pathway for Coronary Atherosclerosis in patients without conventional modifiable risk factors: JACC State-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol2023; 82: 1343–1359.
59.
ShantzEElliottSJSperlingC, et al.Towards an understanding of the biopsychosocial determinants of CVD in SLE: a scoping review. Lupus Sci Med2024; 11: e001155.
60.
RustinMHBullHAMachinSJ, et al.Effects of the lupus anticoagulant in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus on endothelial cell prostacyclin release and procoagulant activity. J Invest Dermatol1988; 90(5): 744–748.
61.
PattersonAMFordIGrahamA, et al.The influence of anti-endothelial/antiphospholipid antibodies on fibrin formation and lysis on endothelial cells. Br J Haematol2006; 133: 323–330.
62.
AlvarezDRuaCBerrioMV, et al.Extracellular vesicles released upon stimulation with antiphospholipid antibodies: An actual direct procoagulant mechanism or a new factor in the lupus anticoagulant paradox?J Autoimmun2022; 133: 102905.
63.
EfthymiouMLanePJIsenbergD, et al.Comparison of Acquired Activated Protein C Resistance, Using the CAT and ST-Genesia® Analysers and Three Thrombin Generation Methods, in APS and SLE Patients. J Clin Med2021; 11(1): 69.
64.
SaenzAJJohnsonNVVan CottEM. Acquired activated protein C resistance caused by lupus anticoagulants. Am J Clin Pathol2011; 136(3): 344–349.
65.
GendronNDragon-DureyMAChocronR, et al.Lupus anticoagulant single positivity during the acute phase of COVID-19 Is Not Associated With Venous Thromboembolism or In-Hospital Mortality. Arthritis Rheumatol2021; 73(11): 1976–1985.
66.
TrimailleAMarchandotBOulehriW, et al.Transient endothelial injury and release of lupus anticoagulant in COVID-19. J Thromb Thrombolysis2022; 53(1): 228–230.
67.
MantovaniAGarlandaC. Humoral Innate Immunity and Acute-Phase Proteins. N Engl J Med2023; 388: 439–452.
68.
HellLLurgerKMauracherLM, et al.Altered platelet proteome in lupus anticoagulant (LA)-positive patients—protein disulfide isomerase and NETosis as new players in LA-related Thrombosis. Exp Mol Med2020; 52: 66–78.
69.
ThalinCHisadaYLundstromS, et al.Neutrophil extracellular traps – villains and targets in arterial, venous and cancer-associated thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol2019; 39(9): 1724–1738.
70.
CastanheiraFVSKubesP. Neutrophils and NETs in modulating acute and chronic inflammation. Blood2019; 133(20): 2178–2185.
71.
SciasciaSSannaGMurruV, et al.The global anti-phospholipid syndrome score in primary APS. Rheumatology2015; 54(1): 134–138.
72.
SciasciaSSannaGMurruV, et al.GAPSS: the global antiphospholipid syndrome score. Rheumatology2013; 52: 1397–1403.
73.
ShahRPicoARFreedmanJE. Translational Epidemiology: Entering a brave new world of team science. Circ Res2016; 119(10): 1060–1062.
74.
WangXChengZ. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest2020; 158(1S): S65–S71.
75.
BarbhaiyaMZuilySNadenR, et al.2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria. Ann Rheum Dis2023; 82: 1258–1270.
76.
FoddaiSGRadinMCecchiI, et al.2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria in existing research cohorts: an international study. Rheumatology2024; 63: 2770–2775.
77.
YalavarthiSGouldTRaoA, et al.Release of neutrophil extracellular traps by neutrophils stimulated with antiphospholipid antibodies: A newly identified mechanism of thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol2015; 67(11): 2990–3003.
78.
LonatiPAScavoneMGerosaM, et al.Blood-cell bound C4d as a marker of complement activation in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome. Front Immunol2019; 10: 773.
79.
ManganelliVTrugliaSCapozziA, et al.Alarmin HMGB1 and soluble RAGE as new tools to evaluate the risk stratification in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome. Front Immunol2019; 10: 460.
80.
SuleGKelleyWJGockmanK, et al.Increased adhesive potential of antiphospholipid syndrome neutrophils mediated by β2 Integrin Mac-1. Arthritis Rheumatol2020; 72(1): 114–124.
81.
ZuoYYalavarthiSGockmanK, et al.Anti-neutrophil extracellular trap antibodies and impaired neutrophil extracellular trap degradation in antiphospholipid syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol2020; 72(12): 2130–2135.
82.
PetersSAEWoodwardM. A roadmap for sex- and gender-disaggregated health research. BMC Med2023; 21: 354.
83.
CollinsGSMoonsKGMDhimanP, et al.TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ2024; 385: e078378.
84.
DuftnerCDejacoCSeprianoA, et al.Imaging in diagnosis, outcome prediction and monitoring of large vessel vasculitis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis informing the EULAR recommendations. RMD Open2018; 4: e000612.
85.
EssoumaMNkeckJREndombaFT, et al.Epidemiological data on systemic lupus erythematosus in native sub-Saharan Africans. Data Brief2020; 28: 104909.
86.
ParukFDeyDMosamA, et al.Challenges in diagnosis and management of SLE in Africa: an online survey. ACR Open Rheumatol2025; 7(1): e11749.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
