Adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) is useful to predict relapses in patients with retinal vein occlusion.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) are antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) carriers. Relapsing disease occurs in nearly 10 % of cases and the role of aPL has not been established. The adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) was developed to assess the risk of clinical events in aPL carriers and its role in the management of RVO patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the values of aGAPSS in a large cohort of patients with RVO and population-based controls, and to assess its usefulness to predict RVO relapses. METHODS: Case-control study of RVO patients and population-based controls of similar age and sex. We have assessed and compared the aPL profile and the aGAPSS score in patients with and without relapsing disease and controls. RESULTS: Four-hundred and seventy-two RVO patients and 346 controls were included. Fifty-seven RVO patients had antiphospholipid syndrome (RVO-APS). Of them, 75.4 % had a high-risk profile compared to 3 % in controls (p = 0.0001). The median aGAPSS values were 8 [7-13], 3 [1-4], and 3 [0-4], in RVO-APS, RVO no-APS, and controls. Nineteen patients had had a recurrence of RVO before inclusion and 8 during the follow-up. APS was more prevalent in relapsing patients. In the adjusted multivariable regression model, the best predictor for RVO recurrence during the follow-up was an aGAPSS score ≥6 (OR 5.5, CI95% 1.3-23.7; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RVO, once the control of vascular risk factors has been optimized, the aGAPSS might help to identify those at risk of relapsing disease.

Risk factors in developing retinal vein occlusion in subject with obstructive sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) have a higher risk of developing vascular diseases. In this study, we evaluated the clinical profile of patients with OSA who develop Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO) compared with a population of OSA patients without RVO. METHODS: We analysed patients with OSA diagnosed with RVO (21 cases; mean of age 61 (12) yrs. range 44-87 yrs. 67% men), belonging to a large cohort of people with long-term follow-up for RVO (up to 12 years). We compared them with 21 patients with OSA, without RVO, matched by age and gender, selected from the Sleep Unit Registry (control group). RESULTS: There were no differences in the prevalence of arterial hypertension (AHT) or Diabetes mellitus (DM), but the RVO patients presented a higher diastolic blood pressure compared to controls (87.6±12.6 mmHg vs. 77.9±10.1 mm Hg respectively). The polygraphic parameters were similar in both groups. The Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (IHA) similar in both groups (30.4 ±20.9 RVO vs. 33.7 ± 22.1 controls). In addition, RVO patients had a less favourable lipid profile, with higher total cholesterol (218±52 mg/dL vs. 179±41 mg/dL), higher LDL cholesterol (139±47 mg/dL vs. 107±32 mg/dL) and higher atherogenic indices: LDL/HDL (2.78 ± 0.95 RVO vs. 2.03±0.67 controls) and total cholesterol / HDL (4.37± 1.08 vs. 3.45 ± 0.84). Among the cases, 81% had peripheral RVO (superior temporal branch in 20 out of 21 cases) and 19% had central RVO. 62% of the cases received intravitreal antiangiogenic therapy and dexamethasone implants and 33% received argon laser photocoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Poor control of cardiovascular risk factors, particularly dyslipidaemias, in patients with OSA may lead to the development of this ocular complication.

Antiphospholipid syndrome and antiphospholipid antibody profile in patients with retinal vein occlusion.

INTRODUCTION: Data on prevalence, association with vascular risk factors, clinical management and outcome of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) are scarce. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with RVO at a tertiary-care hospital, and two additional groups; population-based controls and patients with APS (RVO-APS) were studied. Prevalence, association with vascular risk factors, antiphospholipid antibody profile, clinical management, genetic thrombophilia profile, carotid ultrasound and outcome of RVO-APS patients were assessed and compared with controls. RESULTS: Some 331 consecutive patients with RVO and 281 controls were included. Overall, aPLs were more prevalent in RVO-patients than in controls (33, 10% vs. 12, 4.3%; adjusted OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.25-4.88; p = 0.009). Patients with RVO-APS showed a high-risk "aPL profile" (lupus anticoagulant or triple-positive). We did not find any difference regarding classic vascular risk factors, hyperhomocysteinemia, prior vascular events, and carotid plaque, in RVO-patients with or without APS. The phenotype of RVO-APS also differed from APS. Seven patients received anticoagulation and 24 were on low-dose aspirin. After a median follow-up of 62 months, 7 patients suffered a RVO relapse (4 of them had APLs) and no RVO-APS patient had a new thrombotic or vascular event outside the retina. CONCLUSIONS: aPLs were more prevalent in RVO-patients than in controls, and in all patients, APS was not associated with any connective-tissue disease. RVO in the setting of APS seems not only related to atherosclerosis, but also to the "aPL profile". In most of our RVO-patients with APS, low-dose aspirin was effective to prevent new or recurrent thrombotic events outside the retinal vessels. In these patients, we suggest that RVO could behave as an organ-specific manifestation of APS.