Autoantibodies versus Skin Fibrosis Extent in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case-Control Study of Inverted Phenotypes.
anti-centromere antibodies
anti-topoisomerase 1 antibodies
diffuse
limited
systemic sclerosis
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Apr 2022
24 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
30
03
2022
revised:
22
04
2022
accepted:
22
04
2022
entrez:
28
5
2022
pubmed:
29
5
2022
medline:
29
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Objective: to describe the prevalences, characteristics, and survivals of patients with anti-topoisomerase 1 antibodies (ATA) and limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (lSSc) and anti-centromere antibodies (ACA) and diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dSSc). Methods: patients with ATA lSSc or with ACA dSSc were included in a case-control retrospective study. Results: In our cohort of scleroderma, the prevalence of ACA dSSc and ATA lSSc was 1.1% (12/1040) and 8.9% (93/1040), respectively. ACA dSSc patients had less interstitial lung disease (ILD) (5 (41.7) vs. 74 (79.6); p < 0.01), more cardiac involvement, and more muscle involvement (3 (25) vs. 4 (4.3); p = 0.03 and 4 (33.3) vs. 4 (7.5); p = 0.02,) than ATA dSSc patients. ATA lSSc patients had a higher modified Rodnan skin score than ACA lSSc patients (4 [2−7.5] vs. 2 [0−5]; p < 0.01) and less cardiac or muscle involvement than ATA dSSc patients (6 (6.5) vs. 19 (20.4%); p < 0.01 and 15 (16.1) vs. 54 (58.1); p < 0.0001, respectively). The cumulative 5-year survival rate was 71% in ACA dSSc patients, 95% in ATA lSSc patients, 84% in ACA lSSc patients, and 66% in ATA dSSc patients (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: ATA lSSc and ACA dSSc have specific characteristics when compared to ATA dSSc or ACA lSSc. ATA lSSc patients have more ILD than ACA lSSc patients, and ATA dSSc patients have the worst prognosis. Overall, inverted phenotypes show the value of a patient assessment combining antibody and skin subset and should be considered as a separate group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35626223
pii: diagnostics12051067
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12051067
pmc: PMC9139736
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2003 May;29(2):255-73, vi
pubmed: 12841294
Microvasc Res. 2018 Jan;115:28-33
pubmed: 28834709
Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Feb;31(2):196-203
pubmed: 3348823
Arthritis Rheum. 1992 Oct;35(10):1211-7
pubmed: 1418007
Lancet. 2017 Oct 7;390(10103):1685-1699
pubmed: 28413064
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 19;367(3):214-23
pubmed: 22808956
J Dermatol. 2010 Jan;37(1):42-53
pubmed: 20175839
Rheumatol Int. 2013 Dec;33(12):2967-73
pubmed: 23934522
Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Nov;65(11):2737-47
pubmed: 24122180
Arthritis Res Ther. 2019 Apr 3;21(1):86
pubmed: 30944015
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jun;73(6):1060-6
pubmed: 23606705
Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Jun;66(6):754-63
pubmed: 17234652
Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2018 Mar 07;2(1):rky002
pubmed: 31431952
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Aug;56(8):2740-6
pubmed: 17665460
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Nov;55(11):2001-2008
pubmed: 27520796
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):35-47
pubmed: 29298160
J Rheumatol. 1988 Feb;15(2):202-5
pubmed: 3361530
Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 May 04;18(1):99
pubmed: 27145754
Rheumatol Int. 2021 Feb;41(2):285-295
pubmed: 33386899
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Apr;42(4):534-40
pubmed: 12649400
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Sep;71(9):1553-1570
pubmed: 30969034
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Apr;71(4):563-574
pubmed: 29781576
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Jun;66(6):1625-35
pubmed: 24591477
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Aug;35(1):35-42
pubmed: 16084222
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017 Sep-Oct;35 Suppl 106(4):98-105
pubmed: 28980912
J Rheumatol. 2007 Jul;34(7):1528-34
pubmed: 17610318
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015 Oct;45(2):184-9
pubmed: 25959492
Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5):R172
pubmed: 22018289
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017 May;69(5):1078-1089
pubmed: 27992693