Background. Systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma) is a disorder characterized by fibrosis of skin and visceral organs. Pathogenesis of scleroderma is complex and is incompletely understood as yet. Autoantibodies in SSc represent a serologic hallmark which have clinical relevance, with diagnostic and prognostic potential. Objectives. To study distribution of clinical manifestations and to identify frequency of autoantibodies among subtypes of scleroderma patients from Western India. Methodology. One hundred and ten scleroderma patients were clinically classified according to the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria. All these patients were in active stage of disease. Clinical manifestations were recorded at the time of presentation. Autoantibodies were tested in them by indirect immunofluorescence test and ELISA. Immunoglobulin levels were estimated by nephelometer. These parameters were further correlated with clinical presentation of the disease. Results. Scleroderma patients had M？:？F ratio of 1？:？10 where mean age at evaluation was years and a mean disease duration was months. Clinical subtypes showed that 45 patients (40.9%) had diffused cutaneous (dcSSc) lesions, 32 patients (29.1%) had limited cutaneous (lcSSc) lesions, and 33 patients (30%) had other autoimmune overlaps. The overall frequency of ANA in SSc patients studied was 85.5%. The frequency of anti-Scl70, anti-centromere, anti-endothelial cell antibodies (AECA), and anti-keratinocyte antibodies (AKA) was 62.7%, 22.7%, 30%, and 40.9%, respectively. Anti-Scl70 antibodies were significantly high (75.6% versus 46.9%) among dcSSc patients () whereas anti-centromere antibodies were significantly high (9% versus 38%) among lcSSc patients when these two subtypes were compared (). Conclusion. This study supports that there are geoepidemiological variations among scleroderma patients for their clinical presentation, autoantibody profile, and immune parameters across the country. 1. Introduction Scleroderma or systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a complex autoimmune disease affecting 1/100,000 individuals among the Caucasian population. The prevalence rate of this disease is around 5/100,000 with an incidence of 1/100,000. Higher rates have been reported in USA, Australia, and Eastern Europe and lower rates have been reported in Northern Europe and Japan [1]. Even though current clinical and diagnostic utilities have led to a better understanding of the disease, its pathogenesis still remains unknown. Scleroderma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range
References
[1]
O. Gorlova, J. E. Martin, B. Rueda, et al., “Identification of novel genetic markers associated with clinical phenotypes of systemic sclerosis through a genome wide association strategy,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1–11, 2011.
[2]
U. A. Walker, A. Tyndall, L. Czirjak, et al., “Clinical risk assessment of organ manifestations in systemic sclerosis: a report from the EULAR scleroderma trails and research give up database,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 754–763, 2007.
[3]
C. de Souza Müller, E. dos Santos Paiva, V. F. Azevedo, S. C. Radominski, and J. H. C. L. Filho, “Autoantibody profile and clinical correlation in a group of patients with systemic sclerosis in southern Brazil,” Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 314–324, 2011.
[4]
T. L. Skare, A. E. Fonseca, A. C. Luciano, and P. M. Azevedo, “Autoantibodies in scleroderma and their association with the clinical profile of the disease. A study of 66 patients from southern Brazil,” Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 1075–1081, 2011.
[5]
M. E. Krzyszczak, Y. Li, S. J. Ross et al., “Gender and ethnicity differences in the prevalence of scleroderma-related autoantibodies,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1333–1339, 2011.
[6]
F. van den Hoogen, D. Khanna, J. Fransen, et al., “2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 2737–2747, 2013.
[7]
O. Nadashkevich, P. Davis, and M. J. Fritzler, “A proposal of criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. CR615–CR621, 2004.
[8]
V. Steen, R. T. Domsic, M. Lucas, N. Fertig, and T. A. Medsger Jr., “A clinical and serologic comparison of African American and Caucasian patients with systemic sclerosis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 2986–2994, 2012.
[9]
E. Wielosz, O. Borys, I. Zychowska, and M. Majdan, “Gastrointestinal involvement in patients with systemic sclerosis,” Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 132–136, 2010.
[10]
V. K. Sharma, T. Trilokraj, B. K. Khaitan, and S. M. Krishna, “Profile of systemic sclerosis in a tertiary care center in North India,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 416–420, 2006.
[11]
G. V. Usha, R. G. Singh, S. S. Pande, A. Suri, and M. Seth, “Immunological Alterations in scleroderma,” Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 185–188, 2001.
[12]
A. Kumar, A. N. Malaviya, S. C. Tiwari, R. R. Singh, and J. N. Pande, “Clinical and laboratory profile of systemic sclerosis in North India,” The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 765–768, 1990.
[13]
A. N. Chandrashekharan, V. Krishanmurthy, and R. Porkodi, “Spectrum of clinical and immunological features of systemic rheumatic diseases in a referral hospital in South India: progressive systemic scleoris,” Journal of Indian Rheumatism Association, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 54–60, 1994.
[14]
V. Krishnamurthy, R. Porkodi, S. Ramakrishnan et al., “Progressive systemic sclerosis in South India,” The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 254–257, 1991.
[15]
Y. Desai, M. A. Ghanekar, R. D. Siquera, and V. R. Joshi, “Renal involvement in scleroderma.,” The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 768–770, 1990.
[16]
R. Mierau, P. Moinzadeh, G. Riemekastern, et al., “Frequency of disease-associated and other nuclear autoantibodies in patients of the German network for systemic scleroderma: correlation with characteristic clinical features,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 13, article R172, 2011.
[17]
S. R. Johnson, J. Fransen, D. Khanna et al., “Validation of potential classification criteria for systemic sclerosis,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 358–367, 2012.
[18]
L. V. Lage, J. F. de Carvalho, M. T. C. Caleiro et al., “Fluctuation of anti-endothelial cell antibody titers in mixed connective tissue disease,” Israel Medical Association Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 84–87, 2012.
[19]
A. E. Gliddon, C. J. Doré, J. Dunphy, et al., “Antinuclear antibodies and clinical associations in a British cohort with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 702–705, 2011.
[20]
R. Hesselstrand, A. Scheja, G. Q. Shen, A. Wiik, and A. ？kesson, “The association of antinuclear antibodies with organ involvement and survival in systemic sclerosis,” Rheumatology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 534–540, 2003.
[21]
A. Servettaz, M. C. Tamby, P. Guilpain et al., “Anti-endothelial cell antibodies from patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis bind to centromeric protein B (CENP-B),” Clinical Immunology, vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 212–219, 2006.
[22]
S. Mandai, Y. Arai, S. Hirasawa, et al., “Anti-centromere antibody-positive subjects presenting with hypertensive emergency and renal dysfunction in the absence of skin manifestations: a variant of systemic sclerosis or a novel entity?” Internal Medicine, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 1567–1572, 2012.
