Anti-Ribosomal-P Antibody Association with Neuropsychiatric Lupus in Sudanese Patients Attending Rheumatology Clinic in Omdurman Military Hospital.
ANA
SLE
anti-histone antibodies
anti-ribosomal-P antibodies
neuropsychiatric
Journal
Open access rheumatology : research and reviews
ISSN: 1179-156X
Titre abrégé: Open Access Rheumatol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101688698
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
12
09
2022
accepted:
16
11
2022
entrez:
28
11
2022
pubmed:
29
11
2022
medline:
29
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess and establish the relationship between neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) involvement and serological biomarkers like antiribosomal-P antibodies. This is an analytical cross-sectional hospital-based study conducted on patients attending Omdurman Military Hospital from July 2019 to December 2019. A total of 90 patients were enrolled, 30 of whom had NPSLE compared with 60 SLE patients without NPSLE. SLE diagnosis was established based on the revised SLICC criteria (presence of at least 4 criteria) for SLE classification, with neuropsychiatric manifestations defined based on the ACR nomenclature. The immunological examination results have been performed by (ELISA immune-enzymatic method, immunofluorescence, and Western immunoblotting test). SPSS v 21.0 software was utilised for data analysis. NPSLE patients exhibited +ve ANA in 96.7% vs 75% in non-NPSLE (P-value = 0.008), antiribosomal-P antibodies (46.7% vs 20%; P-value = 0.0001), anti-nucleosome antibodies (26.7% vs 5%; P-value = 0.005), and anti-histones antibodies (40% vs 20%; P-value = 0.04). ANA antibodies were significantly associated with neurological manifestations as ANA antibodies were common in epilepsy (n = 9; 91%) and stroke (n = 8; 27.6%) (P-value < 0.001). Neuropsychiatric manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus exhibits variable clinical manifestations. Neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE are strongly associated with the anti-ribosomal P antibody presence and can be employed as a powerful diagnostic tool.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36440103
doi: 10.2147/OARRR.S387650
pii: 387650
pmc: PMC9697392
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
281-289Informations de copyright
© 2022 Taha et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Lupus. 2016 Jul;25(8):805-11
pubmed: 27252256
BMC Med. 2015 Mar 04;13:43
pubmed: 25858312
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Dec;69(12):2074-82
pubmed: 20724309
Lupus. 2014 Sep;23(10):1031-41
pubmed: 24836587
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Jun;31(3):334-341
pubmed: 29224675
Arthritis Res Ther. 2019 Aug 19;21(1):189
pubmed: 31426834
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Aug;64(8):2677-86
pubmed: 22553077
J Clin Lab Anal. 2008;22(4):271-7
pubmed: 18634076
Lupus. 2008 Feb;17(2):93-9
pubmed: 18250131
Drugs. 1997 Sep;54(3):422-34
pubmed: 9279504
J Rheumatol. 2007 Mar;34(3):588-91
pubmed: 17343303
Neurology. 2003 Jul 8;61(1):108-10
pubmed: 12847168
Autoimmune Dis. 2014;2014:321359
pubmed: 24649358
Lupus. 2006;15(12):835-9
pubmed: 17211987
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009 Aug;48(8):953-7
pubmed: 19502474
Lupus. 2004;13(11):839-49
pubmed: 15580979
Autoimmun Rev. 2014 Aug;13(8):831-9
pubmed: 24704869
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015 May;17(5):32
pubmed: 25874345
Front Immunol. 2018 Jun 06;9:1146
pubmed: 29928273
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2015;237(3):193-9
pubmed: 26490344
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002 Nov;41(11):1308-12
pubmed: 12422005