4.5 Article

False positive VDRL (BFP-STS) and systemic lupus erythematosus; new data in clinico-laboratory associations

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 858-862

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-4362.2002.01575.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To investigate the relationships between clinical features and serological parameters in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with false positive venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL) test (BFP-STS) and those without. Methods The records of 74 patients with SLE were reviewed. These were divided on the basis of the presence of a biologically fase positive serological test (BFP-STS) (n = 18) or its absence (n = 56). The clinical features and serological parameters were subsequently evaluated in each group. Results A biologically fase positive serological test was found in 18 patients (24.5%). Clinically, they had a significantly higher frequency of malar rash (P < 0.02), hemolytic anaemia (P < 0.02) and SLE-related antiphospholipid (APL) syndrome (P < 0.02). Neuropsychiatric lupus was more frequent in the group without BFP-STS. Moreover, subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE), Raynaud's phenomenon, livedo reticularis (LR) and cardiopulmonary complications were present only in the latter group. There was no significant association between BFP-STS and other autoantibodies including Extractable nuclear antigen (ENAs), however, there was a significant association with C3 hypocomplementemia (P < 0.05). Half of the patients with BFP-STS were positive for anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL Abs) vs. 28% in the negative group (P = NS). Conclusions The study suggests that the clinical and serological relevance of BFP-STS in lupus patients may vary from those described in relation to other antiphospholipid determinants. Our patients appeared to have sparing of certain major organ systems, yet there was a greater tendency to developing Antiphospholipid (APL) syndrome and hemolytic anaemia.

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

4.5
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