Autoantibody and Clinical Profiles in Patients With Discoid Lupus and Borderline Systemic Lupus
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.Archives of dermatology (Impact Factor: 4.79). 05/2012; 148(5):651-5. DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.3249
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Cutaneous discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may be associated with less severe disease and with low frequency of nephritis and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate associations between confirmed DLE and other SLE manifestations, adjusting for confounders. METHODS: We identified patients with rheumatologist confirmation, according to 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria, more than 2 visits, longer than 3 months of follow-up, and documented year of SLE diagnosis. DLE was confirmed by a dermatologist, supported by histopathology and images. SLE manifestations, medications, and serologies were collected. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses tested for associations between DLE and each of the ACR SLE criteria, and ESRD. RESULTS: A total of 1043 patients with SLE (117 with DLE and 926 without DLE) were included in the study. After multivariable adjustment, DLE in SLE was significantly associated with photosensitivity (odds ratio [OR] 1.63), leukopenia (OR 1.55), and anti-Smith antibodies (OR 2.41). DLE was significantly associated with reduced risks of arthritis (OR 0.49) and pleuritis (OR 0.56). We found no significant associations between DLE and nephritis or ESRD. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional data collection with risk of data not captured from visits outside system was a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: In our SLE cohort, DLE was confirmed by a dermatologist and we adjusted for possible confounding by medication use, in particular hydroxychloroquine. We found increased risks of photosensitivity, leukopenia, and anti-Smith antibodies and decreased risks of pleuritis and arthritis in patients with SLE and DLE. DLE was not related to anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, lupus nephritis, or ESRD. These findings have implications for prognosis among patients with SLE.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 03/2013; 69(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.02.010 · 4.45 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common immune-mediated oral mucosal disease. Diagnosis of OLP depends mainly on both clinical and histopathological features. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) is a useful investigation method to distinguish between similar lesions and to confirm diagnosis in cases of uncharacterized features. Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and pattern of DIF in a group of Thai patients with OLP. Materials and methods: Records of clinically and histologically diagnosed OLP patients attending the Oral Medicine Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand were consecutively reviewed for DIF results. The DIF patterns in these patients were analysed. Results: There were 82 atrophic and/or erosive OLP patients with a mean age of 51.6 years. Male to female ratio was 1:5. Of these, 82.9% showed positive DIF. Buccal mucosa was superior to the gingiva and palate in terms of sensitivity for DIF. All specimens except one (98.5%) demonstrated deposition of fibrinogen at the basement membrane zone (BMZ) in a shaggy pattern. The most common DIF pattern was shaggy fibrinogen at BMZ with IgM deposition on the colloid bodies (CB) (35.3%) followed by shaggy fibrinogen along BMZ (27.9%). Conclusion: The prevalence of positive DIF in Thai OLP patients was 82.9%. The most common finding was shaggy fibrinogen at BMZ. The typical pattern was shaggy fibrinogen along BMZ with or without positive IgM at CB. DIF pattern could be evaluated for the diagnosis of OLP lacking clinical and/or histopathological characteristic features.10/2015; 9(8):ZC34-7. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2015/13510.6312
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.