Normal salivary gland ultrasonography could rule out the diagnosis of Sjögren's syndrome in anti-SSA-negative patients with sicca syndrome.
Sjogren’s syndrome
damage
fibrosis
salivary glands
ultrasonography
Journal
RMD open
ISSN: 2056-5933
Titre abrégé: RMD Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101662038
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
31
10
2020
revised:
07
01
2021
accepted:
14
01
2021
entrez:
29
1
2021
pubmed:
30
1
2021
medline:
1
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the relevance of salivary gland ultrasound (SGUS) and its place in the diagnostic algorithm in patients referred with dry syndrome (DS) for a suspicion of Sjögren's syndrome (SS). We included all patients assessed at our dedicated DS clinic from June 2015 to September 2019 for which a SGUS has been carried out. Images were read blindly and the worst salivary gland was scored according to OMERACT classification. Clinical features, disease activity and treatments were collected. 337 patients were seen from June 2015 to September 2019. 269 patients underwent SGUS. 77 patients were diagnosed with SS and 192 did not meet the ACR/EULAR criteria for SS: non-Sjögren's DS (NSDS). Of these 192 patients, 60 had another possible cause of DS, and 132 patients were diagnosed with SAPS (sicca, asthenia, polyalgia syndrome).SGUS abnormalities were significantly higher in patients with SS versus NSDS: 51% vs 8% for a score ≥2 (p<0.0001), and 43% vs 3% for a score ≥3 (p<0.0001). SGUS score ≥2 had a specificity (Sp) of 91%, sensitivity (Se) of 57%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 72% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 82% for SS diagnosis. SGUS's characteristics in SSA-negative patients were similar to the whole population (Se=42%, Sp=91%, PPV=42%, NPV=92%). The high specificity and NPV in this population could avoid labial salivary gland biopsy (LSGB) in SSA-negative patients with normal SGUS (186 patients, 69%). SGUS is useful for SS diagnosis. If anti-SSA antibodies are negative and SGUS score <2, the diagnosis of SS is very improbable and LSGB could be avoided.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33510043
pii: rmdopen-2020-001503
doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001503
pmc: PMC7845729
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015 Jan-Feb;33(1):56-62
pubmed: 25535773
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018 May-Jun;36 Suppl 112(3):165-172
pubmed: 29600950
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 20;8(1):17128
pubmed: 30459471
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019 May-Jun;37 Suppl 118(3):140-145
pubmed: 31287407
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jul;78(7):967-973
pubmed: 31036626
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Jul;42(7):914-5; author reply 913-4
pubmed: 12826718
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 May;55(5):789-800
pubmed: 26667216
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1994 Nov-Dec;12 Suppl 11:S9-11
pubmed: 7768059
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Nov;76(11):1883-1889
pubmed: 28754802
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Jul 07;2:16047
pubmed: 27383445
Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 May 28;17:146
pubmed: 26022533
RMD Open. 2017 Jun 9;3(1):e000364
pubmed: 28879042
Arthritis Res Ther. 2017 Dec 6;19(1):269
pubmed: 29208023
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019 May-Jun;37 Suppl 118(3):146-152
pubmed: 31365337
J Intern Med. 2020 Feb;287(2):180-188
pubmed: 31618794
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1992 Jul-Aug;10(4):351-6
pubmed: 1395220
J Rheumatol. 2008 Feb;35(2):285-93
pubmed: 18203316
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 08;378(10):931-939
pubmed: 29514034
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 4;12(8):e0182287
pubmed: 28783737
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Jul;66(7):1102-7
pubmed: 24339361