scholarly journals The predictive value of fluctuations in IgM and IgG class anti-dsDNA antibodies for relapses in systemic lupus erythematosus. A prospective long term observation

1997 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Bootsma ◽  
P. E Spronk ◽  
E. J T. Borg ◽  
E. J Hummel ◽  
G. de Boer ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Zorn-Pauly ◽  
Anne Sae Lim von Stuckrad ◽  
Jens Klotsche ◽  
Thomas Rose ◽  
Tilmann Kallinich ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of SIGLEC1, a surrogate marker of type I IFN, with established biomarkers in an inception cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsSIGLEC1 was analysed by flow cytometry in 232 patients referred to our institution with suspected SLE between October 2015 and September 2020.ResultsSLE was confirmed in 76 of 232 patients (32.8%) according to the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria and their SIGLEC1 values were significantly higher compared to patients without SLE (p<0.0001). A sensitivity of 98.7 %, a specificity of 82.1 %, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.2 % and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.8 % were calculated for SIGLEC1. Adjusted to the highest reported prevalence of SLE, the NPV and PPV were > 99.9 % and 0.1 %, respectively. Using ROC analysis and Delong testing, the area under the curve (AUC) for SIGLEC1 (AUC=0.95) was significantly higher than for ANA (AUC=0.88, p=0.031), C3 (AUC=0.83, p=0.001) and C4 (AUC=0.83, p=0.002) but not for anti-dsDNA antibodies (AUC=0.90, p=0.163).ConclusionIFN-I pathway activation is detectable in almost all newly diagnosed SLE patients. Thus, a negative test result for SIGLEC1 is powerful to exclude SLE in suspected cases.


1975 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 924-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki YAMAURA ◽  
Masaharu RIKIMARU ◽  
Isamu TAKAHASHI ◽  
Sadao ANAN ◽  
Tomio AKIYAMA ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 602.1-603
Author(s):  
E. S. Torun ◽  
E. Bektaş ◽  
F. Kemik ◽  
M. Bektaş ◽  
C. Cetin ◽  
...  

Background:Recently developed EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have important differences compared to the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) SLE classification criteria and the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria: The obligatory entry criterion of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity is introduced and a “weighted” approach is used1. Sensitivity and specificity of these three criteria have been debated and may vary in different populations and clinical settings.Objectives:We aim to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls from a reference center with dedicated clinics for SLE and other autoimmune/inflammatory connective tissue diseases from Turkey.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of SLE patients and diseased controls for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analysed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients for both SLE patients and diseased controls. SLE patients that did not fulfil 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and diseased controls that fulfilled these criteria were evaluated.Results:A total of 392 SLE patients and 294 non-SLE diseased controls (48 undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 51 Sjögren’s syndrome, 43 idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, 50 systemic sclerosis, 52 primary antiphospholipid syndrome, 15 rheumatoid arthritis, 15 psoriatic arthritis and 20 ANCA associated vasculitis) were included into the study. Hundred and fourteen patients (16.6%) were ANA negative.Sensitivity was more than 90% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and positive predictive value was more than 90% for all three criteria (Table 1). Specificity was the highest for 1997 ACR criteria. Negative predictive value was 76.9% for ACR criteria, 88.4% for SLICC criteria and 91.7% for EULAR/ACR criteria.In only ANA positive patients, sensitivity was 79.6% for 1997 ACR criteria, 92.2% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 96.1% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Specificity was 92.6% for ACR criteria, 87.8% for SLICC criteria 85.2% for EULAR/ACR criteria.Eleven clinically diagnosed SLE patients had insufficient number of items for both 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Both criteria were fulfilled by 16 diseased controls: 9 with Sjögren’s syndrome, 5 with antiphospholipid syndrome, one with dermatomyositis and one with systemic sclerosis.Table 1.Sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteriaSLE (+)SLE (-)Sensitivity (%)Positive Predictive Value (%)Specificity (%)Negative Predictive Value (%)1997 ACR(+) 308(-) 841527978.695.494.976.92012 SLICC(+) 357(-) 352626891.193.291.288.42019 EULAR/ACR(+) 368(-) 242826693.892.990.591.7Conclusion:In this cohort, although all three criteria have sufficient specificity, sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR criteria are the lowest. Overall, 2019 EULAR/ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria have a comparable performance, but if only ANA positive cases and controls are analysed, the specificity of both criteria decrease to less than 90%. Some SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis lacked sufficient number of criteria. Mostly, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome are prone to misclassification by both recent criteria.References:[1]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151-1159.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 623.2-624
Author(s):  
L. Zorn-Pauly ◽  
A. S. L. Von Stuckrad ◽  
J. Klotsche ◽  
T. Rose ◽  
T. Kallinich ◽  
...  

Background:While there have been advances in the therapy of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in recent years, there have been no major new findings in SLE biomarkers [1, 2]. Type I interferon (IFN) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of SLE [3]. In 2008, we first described CD169 / SIGLEC-1 (sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin-1), an interferon-induced adhesion molecule on monocytes in SLE patients [4]. For over five years SIGLEC-1 has been routinely assessed in our clinic.Objectives:To evaluate and compare the diagnostic utility of the type I IFN induced SIGLEC-1 with established biomarkers in the initial diagnosis of the disease.Methods:We analyzed retrospectively 232 patients who were on suspicion of SLE at Charité University Hospital Berlin between October 2015 and September 2020. Patients underwent full clinical characterization, and biomarkers were determined in the routine laboratory. Based on the final diagnosis, we divided patients into two groups: A) initial diagnosis of SLE and B) Non-SLE mimicking condition.Results:In 76 patients (32.3 %) SLE was confirmed by fulfilling the EULAR / ACR 2019 classification criteria [5]. SIGLEC-1 was dramatically increased in patients with an initial diagnosis of SLE compared to patients without SLE (p<0.0001). For a threshold of 2500 molecule per monocyte, a sensitivity of 98.7 %, a specificity of 82.1 %, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.2 %, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.8 % were calculated for SIGLEC-1. Adjusted to the prevalence of SLE in Germany (36.7 per 100,000 inhabitants [6]) NPV and PPV turned out to > 99.9 % and 0.2 %. We further aimed to compare not only the performance of the tests at a given cutoff but also across all possible measured values. Therefore, we conducted ROC curves analyses (see figure 1). The area under the curve (AUC) of SIGLEC-1 test was significantly higher than that of ANA test (AUC=0.88, p=0.031), C3 (AUC = 0.83, p=0.001), C4 (AUC=0.83, p=0.002), but not than that of the Anti-dsDNA ELISA (AUC=0.90, p=0.163).Conclusion:Our study shows that IFN activity is a hallmark at the onset of the disease and that the interferon biomarker SIGLEC-1 is valuable to rule out SLE in suspected cases.References:[1]Ostendorf L, Burns M, Durek P, Heinz GA, Heinrich F, Garantziotis P, Enghard P, Richter U, Biesen R, Schneider U et al: Targeting CD38 with Daratumumab in Refractory Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2020, 383(12):1149-1155.[2]Furie R, Rovin BH, Houssiau F, Malvar A, Teng YKO, Contreras G, Amoura Z, Yu X, Mok CC, Santiago MB et al: Two-Year, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Belimumab in Lupus Nephritis. N Engl J Med 2020, 383(12):1117-1128.[3]Ronnblom L, Leonard D: Interferon pathway in SLE: one key to unlocking the mystery of the disease. Lupus Sci Med 2019, 6(1):e000270.[4]Biesen R, Demir C, Barkhudarova F, Grun JR, Steinbrich-Zollner M, Backhaus M, Haupl T, Rudwaleit M, Riemekasten G, Radbruch A et al: Sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin 1 expression in inflammatory and resident monocytes is a potential biomarker for monitoring disease activity and success of therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 58(4):1136-1145.[5]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, Brinks R, Mosca M, Ramsey-Goldman R, Smolen JS, Wofsy D, Boumpas DT, Kamen DL et al: 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2019, 78(9):1151-1159.[6]Brinks R, Fischer-Betz R, Sander O, Richter JG, Chehab G, Schneider M: Age-specific prevalence of diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus in Germany 2002 and projection to 2030. Lupus 2014, 23(13):1407-1411.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Lupus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (13) ◽  
pp. 1448-1456 ◽  
Author(s):  
K C Maloney ◽  
T S Ferguson ◽  
H D Stewart ◽  
A A Myers ◽  
K De Ceulaer

Background Epidemiological studies in systemic lupus erythematosus have been reported in the literature in many countries and ethnic groups. Although systemic lupus erythematosus in Jamaica has been described in the past, there has not been a detailed evaluation of systemic lupus erythematosus patients in urban Jamaica, a largely Afro-Caribbean population. The goal of this study was to describe the clinical features, particularly disease activity, damage index and immunological features, of 150 systemic lupus erythematosus subjects. Methods 150 adult patients (≥18 years) followed in rheumatology clinic at a tertiary rheumatology hospital centre (one of two of the major public referral centres in Jamaica) and the private rheumatology offices in urban Jamaica who fulfilled Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria were included. Data were collected by detailed clinical interview and examination and laboratory investigations. Hence demographics, SLICC criteria, immunological profile, systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and SLICC/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) damage index (SDI) were documented. Results Of the 150 patients, 145 (96.7%) were female and five (3.3%) were male. The mean age at systemic lupus erythematosus onset was 33.2 ± 10.9. Mean disease duration was 11.3 ± 8.6 years. The most prevalent clinical SLICC criteria were musculoskeletal, with 141 (94%) of subjects experiencing arthralgia/arthritis, followed by mucocutaneous manifestations of alopecia 103 (68.7%) and malar rash 46 (30.7%), discoid rash 45 (30%) and photosensitivity 40 (26.7%). Lupus nephritis (biopsy proven) occurred in 42 (28%) subjects and 25 (16.7%) met SLICC diagnostic criteria with only positive antinuclear antibodies/dsDNA antibodies and lupus nephritis on renal biopsy. The most common laboratory SLICC criteria were positive antinuclear antibodies 136 (90.7%) followed by anti-dsDNA antibodies 95 (63.3%) and low complement (C3) levels 38 (25.3%). Twenty-seven (18%) met SLICC diagnostic criteria with only positive antinuclear antibodies/anti-dsDNA antibodies and lupus nephritis on renal biopsy. Mean SLEDAI score was 6.9 ± 5.1 with a range of 0–32. Organ damage occurred in 129 (86%) patients; mean SDI was 2.4 ± 1.8, with a range of 0–9. Conclusion These results are similar to the clinical manifestations reported in other Afro-Caribbean populations; however, distinct differences exist with respect to organ involvement and damage, particularly with respect to renal involvement, which appears to be reduced in our participants.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conti Fabrizio ◽  
Ceccarelli Fulvia ◽  
Perricone Carlo ◽  
Massaro Laura ◽  
Marocchi Elisa ◽  
...  

Objectives. The anti-dsDNA antibodies are a marker for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and 70–98% of patients test positive. We evaluated the demographic, clinical, laboratory, and therapeutical features of a monocentric SLE cohort according to the anti-dsDNA status.Methods. We identified three groups: anti-dsDNA + (persistent positivity); anti-dsDNA ± (initial positivity and subsequent negativity during disease course); anti-dsDNA − (persistent negativity). Disease activity was assessed by the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement (ECLAM).Results. We evaluated 393 patients (anti-dsDNA +: 62.3%; anti-dsDNA ±: 13.3%; anti-dsDNA −: 24.4%). The renal involvement was significantly more frequent in anti-dsDNA + (30.2%), compared with anti-dsDNA ± and anti-dsDNA − (21.1% and 18.7%, resp.;P=0.001). Serositis resulted significantly more frequent in anti-dsDNA − (82.3%) compared to anti-dsDNA + and anti-dsDNA ± (20.8% and 13.4%, resp.;P<0.0001). The reduction of C4 serum levels was identified significantly more frequently in anti-dsDNA + and anti-dsDNA ± (40.0% and 44.2%, resp.) compared with anti-dsDNA − (21.8%,P=0.005). We did not identify significant differences in the mean ECLAM values before and after modification of anti-dsDNA status (P=0.7).Conclusion. Anti-dsDNA status influences the clinical and immunological features of SLE patients. Nonetheless, it does not appear to affect disease activity.


Lupus ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
E Tsakonas ◽  
L Joseph ◽  
J M Esdaile ◽  
D Choquette ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document