American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
General obstetrics and gynecologyIntravenous immunoglobulin therapy for the antiphospholipid syndrome in pregnancy
References (25)
- et al.
Fetal survival after prednisone suppression of maternal lupus-anticoagulant
Lancet
(1983) - et al.
Prednisone does not prevent recurrent fetal death in women with antiphospholipid antibody
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1989) Osteoporotic fracture and the recurrence of thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium in 184 women undergoing thromboprophylaxis wit heparin
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1993)Syndrome of the black swan
Br J Rheumatol
(1987)- et al.
Antibody to cardiolipin, lupus anticoagulant, and fetal death
J Rheumatol
(1987) - et al.
Thombosis, recurrent fetal loss, and thrombocytopenia
Arch Intern Med
(1986) - et al.
Antiphospholipid antibodies and the antiphospholipid syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective analysis of 500 consecutive patients
Medicine
(1990) - et al.
Outcome of treated pregnancies in women with antiphospholipid syndrome: an update of the Utah experience
Obstet Gynecol
(1992) - et al.
Role of lupus anticoagulant and autoimmunity in recurrent pregnancy loss
Semin Reprod Endocrinol
(1988) - et al.
Lupus anticoagulant in pregnancy
Br. J Obstet Gybaecol
(1984)
Repeated fetal losses associated with antiphospholipid antibodies: a collaborative randomized trial comparing prednisone with low-dose heparin treatment
Am J Obstet Gynecol
Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment of pregnant patients with recurrent pregnancy losses associated with antiphospholipid antibodies
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Cited by (111)
Antiphospholipid antibody profile based obstetric outcomes of primary antiphospholipid syndrome: the PREGNANTS study
2017, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyCitation Excerpt :Therefore, the efficacy of corticosteroids remains uncertain; because of the risks associated,19 its use is not recommended.3 Treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin has been evaluated in few studies, and the observations suggest that this therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes beyond that observed with heparin and aspirin.20-22,24,25 However, because the efficacy has not been proved in appropriately powered randomized trials24,25 and the drug is extremely expensive,26,27 its use is discouraged.3
Treatment of Pregnancy Complications in Antiphospholipid Syndrome
2017, Handbook of Systemic Autoimmune DiseasesIntravenous immunoglobulins and antiphospholipid syndrome: How, when and why? A review of the literature
2016, Autoimmunity ReviewsSpecialized Treatment Approaches and Niche Therapies for Lupus Subsets
2012, Dubois' Lupus Erythematosus and Related Syndromes: Eighth EditionLow-molecular-weight heparin versus intravenous immunoglobulin for recurrent abortion associated with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome
2009, International Journal of Gynecology and ObstetricsCitation Excerpt :Control patients were not assessed, but the finding of a 5.4% decrease in lumbar spine bone mineral density in those treated with heparin is concordant with a prospective study demonstrating a 5% decrease in lumbar bone mineral density in pregnant study participants treated with LMW heparin compared with 3% in the pregnant control patients [26]. On the other hand, studies investigating the use of IVIG for the treatment of recurrent abortions show that IVIG may be beneficial for these patients, but the studies included small series of patients [27,28]. A larger study, which took place in 1996, showed the positive role if IVIG in the treatment of recurrent abortions.
Chapter 17 Treatment of Late Pregnancy Complications in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome
2009, Handbook of Systemic Autoimmune DiseasesCitation Excerpt :Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is of interest because it reduces levels of aCL through saturation of the IgG transport receptor, leading to accelerated catabolism of pathogenic aPL (Pierangeli et al., 2001). Although earlier studies were promising (Spinnato et al., 1995), IVIG is not routinely recommended for pregnant women who have APS. This is based on a lack of clear evidence that it is beneficial.