全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Are There Clinical Differences in Limited Systemic Sclerosis according to Extension of Skin Involvement?

DOI: 10.1155/2014/716358

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Objectives. To examine the characteristics of our patients with limited systemic sclerosis (lSSc) for differences between Barnett Type 1 (sclerodactyly only) and Type 2 or intermediate (acrosclerosis-distal but may reach up to elbows and/or knees plus face) subsets. Methods. Records of patients between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011, with SSc or those with anti-Scl-70, anticentromere, or antinucleolar antibodies were reviewed. Only cases fulfilling ACR 1980 criteria were included and classified as diffuse or limited according to LeRoy’s criteria. Limited SSc was separated into sclerodactyly and acrosclerosis (Barnett’s Types 1 and 2). Results. 234 SSc patients (216 females) fulfilled criteria. Female/male ratio was 12?:?1; 24% had dSSc and 76% lSSC (64% Type 1 and 12% Type 2). Total follow-up was 688 patient-years. Within lSSC, the Type 2 group had significantly shorter duration of Raynaud’s and more anti-Scl-70 and less anticentromere antibodies. In particular, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was significantly more prevalent in Type 2 group and similar to Type 3. Conclusions. These results appear to confirm that extension of skin involvement within limited SSc may identify two different subsets with clinical and serologic characteristics. 1. Introduction There appears to have been consensus in the past decades in classifying systemic sclerosis (SSc) according to extension of skin involvement as limited and diffuse, using the elbows and knees as “limits” to distinguish between them. However, although this has been used to “dissect” two more or less distinct clinical subsets, there are patients who do not fit this classification and several others have been proposed [1, 2]. The growing demonstration that autoantibodies specific for SSc such as anticentromere, anti-Scl-70 (anti-topoisomerase 1), and more recently a variety of antinucleolar antibodies, particularly anti-RNA polymerase 3, correlate with these subsets and/or visceral manifestations has led to them being used to “predict” clinical subsets in early disease and also raise awareness for the possibility of certain organ involvement (anti-Scl-70 and interstitial lung disease [3, 4], anticentromere associated with digital ulcers [5], debatably pulmonary hypertension [6], and anti-RNA polymerase 3 with renal crisis [7]). Decades ago, Barnett classified SSc as Type 1 (only sclerodactyly), Type 2 (acrosclerosis-distal but may reach up to elbows and/or knees plus face), and Type 3 (diffuse skin involvement) (Figure 1). Patients with Type 2 had an intermediate degree of both skin and organ

References

[1]  R. T. Domsic and T. A. Medsger Jr., “Disease subsets in clinical practice,” in Scleroderma: From Pathogenesis to Comprehensive Management, J. Varga, C. Denton, and F. Wigley, Eds., pp. 45–52, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2012.
[2]  L. Chung, J. Fransen, and F. van den Hoogen, “Evolving concepts of diagnosis and classification,” in Scleroderma: From Pathogenesis to Comprehensive Management, J. Varga, C. Denton, and F. Wigley, Eds., pp. 54–69, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 2012.
[3]  L. J. Catoggio, R. M. Bernstein, C. M. Black, G. R. Hughes, and P. J. Maddison, “Serological markers in progressive systemic sclerosis: Clinical correlations,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 23–27, 1983.
[4]  V. D. Steen, D. L. Powell, and T. A. Medsger Jr., “Clinical correlations and prognosis based on serum autoantibodies in patients with systemic sclerosis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 196–203, 1988.
[5]  A. L. Herrick, T. L. Moore, A. K. Murray, et al., “Nail-fold capillary abnormalities are associated with anti-centromere antibody and severity of digital ischaemia,” Rheumatology, vol. 49, no. 9, Article ID keq139, pp. 1776–1782, 2010.
[6]  Y. Hamaguchi, “Autoantibody profiles in systemic sclerosis: predictive value for clinical evaluation and prognosis,” Journal of Dermatology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 42–53, 2010.
[7]  H. Penn, A. J. Howie, E. J. Kingdon et al., “Scleroderma renal crisis: patient characteristics and long-term outcomes,” QJM, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 485–494, 2007.
[8]  A. J. Barnett and D. A. Coventry, “Scleroderma. 1. Clinical features, course of illness and response to treatment in 61 cases.,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 1, no. 19, pp. 992–1001, 1969.
[9]  A. J. Barnett, “Scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis): progress and course based on a personal series of 118 cases,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 129–134, 1978.
[10]  A. J. Barnett, M. Miller, and G. O. Littlejohn, “The diagnosis and classification of scleroderma (systemic sclerosis),” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 64, no. 748, pp. 121–125, 1988.
[11]  A. T. Masi, “Classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): relationship of cutaneous subgroups in early disease to outcome and serologic reactivity,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 894–898, 1988.
[12]  M. Giordano, G. Valentini, S. Migliaresi, U. Picillo, and M. Vatti, “Different antibody patterns and different prognoses in patients with scleroderma with various extent of skin sclerosis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 911–916, 1986.
[13]  L. J. Catoggio, R. P. Skinner, and P. J. Maddison, “Frequency and clinical significance of anticentromere and anti Scl-70 antibodies in an English connective tissue disease population,” Rheumatology International, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 19–21, 1983.
[14]  G. Reimer, V. D. Steen, C. A. Penning, T. A. Medsger Jr., and E. M. Tan, “Correlates between autoantibodies to nucleolar antigens and clinical features in patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma),” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 525–532, 1988.
[15]  V. D. Steen, D. L. Powell, and T. A. Medsger Jr., “Clinical correlations and prognosis based on serum autoantibodies in patients with systemic sclerosis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 196–203, 1988.
[16]  F. M. P. Meier, K. W. Frommer, R. Dinser et al., “Update on the profile of the EUSTAR cohort: an analysis of the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research group database,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 1355–1360, 2012.
[17]  U. A. Walker, A. Tyndall, L. Czirják, C. Denton, D. Farge-Bancel, and O. Kowal-Bielecka, “Clinical risk assessment of organ manifestations in systemic sclerosis: a report from th e EULAR Scleroderma Trials And Research group database,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, pp. 754–763, 2007.
[18]  T. R. Cottrell, R. A. Wise, F. M. Wigley, and F. Boin, “The degree of skin involvement identifies distinct lung disease outcomes and survival in systemic sclerosis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1060–1066, 2014.
[19]  M. Scolnik, E. Lancioni, C. Saucedo, et al., “Systemic sclerosis in Argentina: evaluation of a large cohort from a single centre and comparison with other international series,” vol. 86, supplement, no. 6, pp. 94–97, 2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25198424.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133