Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included four phases: (1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; (2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; (3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and (4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into six clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and two laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β₂-glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least three points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria vs the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% vs 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% vs 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Objective To develop recommendations for cardiovascular risk (CVR) management in gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Methods Following European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) standardised procedures, a multidisciplinary task force formulated recommendations for CVR prediction and management based on systematic literature reviews and expert opinion. Results Four overarching principles emphasising the need of regular screening and management of modifiable CVR factors and patient education were endorsed. Nineteen recommendations (eleven for gout, vasculitis, SSc, MCTD, myositis, SS; eight for SLE, APS) were developed covering three topics: (1) CVR prediction tools; (2) interventions on traditional CVR factors and (3) interventions on disease-related CVR factors. Several statements relied on expert opinion because high-quality evidence was lacking. Use of generic CVR prediction tools is recommended due to lack of validated rheumatic diseases-specific tools. Diuretics should be avoided in gout and beta-blockers in SSc, and a blood pressure target <130/80 mm Hg should be considered in SLE. Lipid management should follow general population guidelines, and antiplatelet use in SLE, APS and large-vessel vasculitis should follow prior EULAR recommendations. A serum uric acid level <0.36 mmol/L (<6 mg/dL) in gout, and disease activity control and glucocorticoid dose minimisation in SLE and vasculitis, are recommended. Hydroxychloroquine is recommended in SLE because it may also reduce CVR, while no particular immunosuppressive treatment in SLE or urate-lowering therapy in gout has been associated with CVR lowering. Conclusion These recommendations can guide clinical practice and future research for improving CVR management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Objective. To develop and validate a risk score [global APS score (GAPSS)] derived from the combination of independent risk for thrombosis and pregnancy loss (PL), taking into account the aPL profile, conventional cardiovascular risk factors and the autoimmune antibody profile. Methods. This cross-sectional study included 211 consecutive SLE patients. Data on clinical manifestations, conventional cardiovascular risk factors, aPL profile, ANAs, ENA and anti-dsDNA were collected. Long-term low-dose aspirin, oral anticoagulant and HCQ treatment were also included in the analysis. Patients were randomly divided into two sets by a computer-generated randomized list. We developed GAPSS in the first set of patients (n = 106), assigning the risk factors identified by multivariate analysis weighted points proportional to the β-regression coefficient values. GAPSS was validated in the second set of patients (n = 105). The relationship between GAPPS and thrombosis and/or PL was analysed. Results. In the first set, higher values of GAPSS were seen in patients who experienced thrombosis and/or PL compared with those without clinical events [GAPSS 9.3 (4.8) (range 1–19) and 5.3 (4) (range 0–16), P < 0.001]. Also taken separately, patients who experienced thrombosis or PL showed higher GAPSS compared with those without clinical events [GAPSS 9.6 (4.8) (range 1–19) vs 4.9 (5) (range 0–14), P = 0.027 for thrombosis; 7.3 (5) vs 3.9 (5.1) (range 0–16), P = 0.024 for PL, respectively]. In the second set, the results were similar, with statistically higher values of GAPSS in patients with a clinical history of thrombosis and/or PL compared with those without events [GAPSS 9.5 (5.6) (range 0–20) and 3.9 (4.1) (range 0–17), P < 0.001). Higher values were also seen when subclassifying the patients according to the clinical manifestation, thrombosis or PL [GAPSS 9.5 (5.6) (range 0–20) vs 4.8 (5.4) (range 0–17), P = 0.036 for thrombosis; 7.9 (3.3) vs 3.8 (5.4) (range 0–16), P = 0.037 for PL, respectively). Conclusion. These data propose a substantial improvement in risk prediction of thrombosis or PL in SLE based on assessment of the GAPSS, a quantitative scoring system.