King's College London

Research portal

Low-dose aspirin vs low-dose aspirin plus low-intensity warfarin in thromboprophylaxis: a prospective, multicentre, randomized, open, controlled trial in patients positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (ALIWAPAS)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Maria J Cuadrado, Maria L Bertolaccini, Paul T Seed, Maria G Tektonidou, Angeles Aguirre, Luisa Mico, Caroline Gordon, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, Maria V Egurbide, Antonio Gil, Gerard Espinosa, Frederic Houssiau, Anisur Rahman, Helena Martin, Neil McHugh, Maria Galindo, Mohammed Akil, Mary C Amigo, Veronica Murru, Munther A Khamashta

Original languageEnglish
Article numberN/A
Pages (from-to)275-284
Number of pages10
JournalRheumatology (Oxford, England)
Volume53
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Feb 2014

King's Authors

Abstract

Objectives. The objectives of this study are to examine the efficacy and safety of low-dose aspirin (LDA) vs LDA plus low-intensity warfarin (LDA + W) in the primary thrombosis prevention of aPL-positive patients with SLE and/or obstetric morbidity and the role of clinical and serological markers in the development of thrombosis.

Methods. In this 5-year prospective, randomized, open, controlled trial, 166 patients with aPL were randomly assigned using a minimization protocol to receive treatment with LDA (n = 82) or LDA + W [international normalized ratio (INR) = 1.5] (n = 84). Sixty-six patients who declined randomization were followed up in an observational arm. Clinical and laboratory characteristics and medication side effects were recorded.

Results. There were no differences in the number of thromboses between patients treated with LDA (4/82) or LDA + W (4/84) [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.27, 4.3]. The incidence of thrombosis in the randomized patients was 8/166 (1.8 events/100 person-years) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27, 4.3) and in the observational arm was 7/66 (4.9 events/100 person-years) (HR 2.43, 95% CI 0.87, 6.79). Sixty-five of 66 patients included in the observational arm received LDA. None of the examined clinical or serological factors appeared to predict thrombosis. Medication side effects included mild gastrointestinal symptoms in the LDA group (n = 2) and bleeding in the LDA + W group (n = 11; 1 nasal and 10 menorrhagia). The risk difference for bleeding was 13% (CI 6, 20).

Conclusion. No differences in the number of thromboses were observed between patients treated with LDA vs those treated with LDA + W. More episodes of bleeding were detected in the LDA + W group. The LDA + W regime was significantly less safe and not as acceptable as LDA alone.

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454