Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital

The SSB-positive/SSA-negative antibody profile is not associated with key phenotypic features of Sjögren's syndrome

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. 2021 EULAR recommendations for the implementation of self-management strategies in patients with inflammatory arthritis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. EULAR recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • Alan N Baer
  • Mara McAdams DeMarco
  • Stephen C Shiboski
  • Mi Y Lam
  • Stephen Challacombe
  • Troy E Daniels
  • Yi Dong
  • John S Greenspan
  • Bruce W Kirkham
  • Hector E Lanfranchi
  • Morten Schiødt
  • Muthiah Srinivasan
  • Hisanori Umehara
  • Frederick B Vivino
  • Cristina F Vollenweider
  • Yan Zhao
  • Lindsey A Criswell
  • Caroline H Shiboski
  • Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) Research Groups (Steffen Ellitsgaard Hamann, members)
Vis graf over relationer

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Sjögren's syndrome B (SSB)-positive/Sjögren's syndrome A (SSA)-negative antibody profile is associated with key phenotypic features of SS.

METHODS: Among registrants in the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) with possible or established SS, we compared anti-SSA/anti-SSB reactivity profiles against concurrent phenotypic features. We fitted logistic regression models to explore the association between anti-SSA/anti-SSB reactivity profile and each key SS phenotypic feature, controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS: Among 3297 participants, 2061 (63%) had negative anti-SSA/anti-SSB, 1162 (35%) had anti-SSA with or without anti-SSB, and 74 (2%) anti-SSB alone. Key SS phenotypic features were more prevalent and had measures indicative of greater disease activity in those participants with anti-SSA, either alone or with anti-SSB, than in those with anti-SSB alone or negative SSA/SSB serology. These between-group differences were highly significant and not explained by confounding by age, race/ethnicity or gender. Participants with anti-SSB alone were comparable to those with negative SSA/SSB serology in their association with these key phenotypic features. Among SICCA participants classified with SS on the basis of the American-European Consensus Group or American College of Rheumatology criteria, only 2% required the anti-SSB-alone test result to meet these criteria.

CONCLUSIONS: The presence of anti-SSB, without anti-SSA antibodies, had no significant association with SS phenotypic features, relative to seronegative participants. The solitary presence of anti-SSB antibodies does not provide any more support than negative serology for the diagnosis of SS. This serological profile should thus be interpreted cautiously in clinical practice and potentially eliminated from future classification criteria.

TidsskriftAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Udgave nummer8
Sider (fra-til)1557-61
Antal sider5
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2015

ID: 46230710