ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Impact of antiphospholipid and antinuclear antibodies in coronary artery disease progression.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The role of antiphospholipid (aPL) and antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in the progression of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. We aimed to determine whether the presence of aPL or ANA predicts CAD progression. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center, case-control study including patients with CAD classified as either rapid clinical progressors (RCP) or long-standing stable (LSS), and a population-based control group. Autoantibodies analyzed included anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aB2GPI), anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (anti-PS/PT), and ANA. Results: We included 180 CAD patients (58 RCP, 122 LSS) and 210 matched controls. CAD patients more frequently exhibited positive aCL (p<0.05), whereas aB2GPI IgA was higher among controls. The only significant difference between RCP and LSS was an increased prevalence of aCL IgA in RCP (p<0.05). No consistent differences were found in ANA positivity, antibody subtypes, or overall autoantibody load between groups. Conclusions: This study does not support a significant role for aPL or ANA in the development or progression of CAD. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating, and larger, prospective multicenter studies with repeated antibody measurements are required to clarify these associations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.