4.6 Article

Clinical manifestations correlated to the prevalence of autoantibodies in a large (n=321) cohort of patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome -: A comparison of patients initially diagnosed according to the Copenhagen classification criteria with the American-European consensus criteria

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 276-281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2004.12.002

关键词

Sjogren's syndrome; classification criteria; autoantibodies; anti-Ro; anti-La; ANA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we imposed the recently described American-European consensus criteria for primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS) on a large cohort of patients originally classified according to the Copenhagen set of criteria. Of the 321 patients fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, 205 conformed to the Consensus criteria. When comparing clinical manifestations and laboratory findings between the two groups defined by different standards we found only small variations. Thus, the consequence of using the Consensus criteria in daily clinical practice will lead to the exclusion of a considerable proportion of patients with classical features of pSS. The main reason for this discrepancy is probably the absolute requirement of a positive test for anti-Ro/La or a characteristic lymphocytic infiltration in the labial gland biopsy. The sensitivity and specificity of testing for autoantibodies to Ro-52, Ro-60, and La were calculated for each set of criteria. Antibodies to La but not to Ro-52 or Ro-60 were strongly correlated to internal organ (kidney, lung, liver) dysfunction in pSS (OR 6; 95% Cl 312), p < 0.0001. Although presence of ANA was slightly more prevalent among patients with internal organ involvement it did not reach statistical significance. The fine speckled ANA pattern was most often found followed by the homogeneous and centromere pattern. Individual ANA patterns did not correlate with any particular organ manifestation. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据