Autoanticuerpos como biomarcadores de actividad de la enfermedad del lupus eritematoso sistémico / Autoantibodies as biomarkers of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus

Hay una necesidad urgente de biomarcadores que permitan identificar y predecir las fases de actividad del lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES) para optimizar el manejo clínico de los pacientes. De la centena de autoanticuerpos presentes en los pacientes con LES muy pocos son candidatos para biomarcadores de actividad clínica de la enfermedad y ninguno se ha establecido como criterio independiente para la toma de decisiones clínicas. Identificar las recaídas del LES es más arte que ciencia. Recientemente se ha señalado que la correlación positiva entre los niveles de autoanticuerpos y la actividad del LES puede estar subvertida por la presencia de autoanticuerpos protectores que se oponen al daño hístico que producen los autoanticuerpos patogénicos. Los anticuerpos anti-nucleosoma, anti-DNA de doble cadena y anti-C1q están asociados a la actividad de la enfermedad evaluada por varios sistemas de puntuación internacionales como el SLEDAI, ECLAM y BILAG, mayormente en estudios transversales. Estos biomarcadores resultan prometedores para el seguimiento clínico de pacientes con LES, pero aún necesitan la validación de estudios controlados multicéntricos de gran escala. Se hizo esta revisión para resumir los retos del descubrimiento y validación de los autoanticuerpos biomarcadores de actividad del LES en el marco de la complejidad funcional de los autoanticuerpos...

There is an urgent need for biomarkers to identify and predict activity phases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to optimize the patients clinical management. Out of hundreds of autoantibodies present in SLE patients, very few are candidates for biomarkers of clinical disease activity and none has been established as an independent criterion for clinical decision making. Identifying relapse of SLE is more art than science. It has recently been suggested that the positive correlation between autoantibody levels and SLE activity may be subverted by the presence of protective autoantibodies opposed to tissue damage produced by pathogenic autoantibodies. The anti-nucleosome, anti-dsDNA and anti-C1q antibodies are associated with disease activity assessed by several international rating systems such as the SLEDAI, BILAG ECLAM and, partly in cross-sectional studies. These biomarkers are promising for clinical monitoring of SLE patients, but they still need the validation of multi-scale controlled studies. This review was to summarize the challenges of discovery and validation of biomarkers of autoantibodies in SLE activity within the functional complexity of the autoantibodies...

Anti-nucleosome antibodies as a disease marker in systemic lupus erythematosus and its correlation with disease activity and other autoantibodies.

Background: Detection of anti-nucleosome antibodies (anti-nuc) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has been well established and it is claimed that their presence is associated with disease activity. Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of anti-nuc antibodies and to correlate them with disease activity and its association with other autoantibodies like anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-histone antibodies (AHA), as well as autoantibodies to histone subfractions like H1, (H2A-H4) complex, H2B, and H3. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 100 SLE patients referred from the Rheumatology, Dermatology, and Nephrology Departments. SLE disease activity was evaluated by using SLE-Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score. A patient was defined as having active SLE when the SLEDAI score was more than 5.0. Fifty normal controls were also tested as a healthy control group. Anti-nuc antibodies, anti-dsDNA, and AHA were tested by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and ANA was detected by an indirect immunofluorescence test. Results: All patients studied were in an active stage of disease and were untreated, of which 44 patients had renal biopsy-proven kidney involvement, which was categorized as lupus nephritis (LN) and 56 patients did not show any renal manifestations (SLE without LN). Anti-nuc antibodies were positive in 88%, anti-dsDNA in 80%, and AHA in 38% of the cases. ANA was positive in all SLE patients studied. None of the normal controls was found to be positive for these antibodies. Although a slightly higher incidence of autoantibodies were noted in LN, there was no statistical difference noted between LN and SLE without LN groups for anti-nuc and anti-dsDNA antibodies (p > 0.05). A higher incidence of autoantibodies to ANA specificities were noted in anti-nuc positive cases, but there was no statistical difference between anti-nuc positive and anti-nuc negative cases for ANA specificities among LN and SLE without nephritis groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Anti-nuc antibody detection could be a better tool for the diagnosis of SLE. Although there was no significant difference in LN and SLE without LN groups, this study suggests that anti-nuc detection can be useful as an additional disease activity marker to other laboratory tests.