What is the clinical significance of anti-Sm antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus? A comparison with anti-dsDNA antibodies and C3.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical value of anti-Sm antibodies in diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their ability to predict lupus flares compared with that of anti-dsDNA antibody and complement (C3) assays. METHODS: Autoantibodies against Smith antigen (Sm) and double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) in sera from SLE (n=232), myositis (n=26), systemic sclerosis (n=81), Sjögren's syndrome (n=88), and rheumatoid arthritis patients (n=165) and healthy donors (n=400) were determined by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (both from Euroimmun). New thresholds for both autoantibodies were calculated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. Cross-sectional, longitudinal and predictive analyses of anti-Sm and disease activity were also performed. RESULTS: Sensitivities of 25.9% for anti-Sm (cut-off: 3.6 relative units/ml) and 30.2% for anti-dsDNA (cut-off 157.4 international units/ml) were obtained at a specificity of 99%. 14.8% of anti-dsDNA-negative patients were positive for anti-Sm, and more than half (51.4%) of anti-dsDNA-positive patients were also positive for anti-Sm. Anti-Sm antibodies were associated with age (p=0.0174), the number of ACR criteria (p=0.0242), the ACR criteria renal (p=0.0350) and neurologic disorder (p=0.0239), the BILAG category constitutional symptoms (p=0.0227), fatigue (p=0.0311) and cross-sectional disease activity (r=0.2519, p=0.0224). Although no correlations with lupus activity were observed in the longitudinal and predictive analysis, a remarkable association was found between anti-Sm and proteinuria. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-Sm antibodies are essential for diagnosis of SLE, especially in anti-dsDNA-negative patients. However, our data suggest that anti-Sm monitoring is only helpful in SLE patients with active lupus nephritis.

Diagnostic value and clinical laboratory associations of antibodies against recombinant ribosomal P0, P1 and P2 proteins and their native heterocomplex in a Caucasian cohort with systemic lupus erythematosus.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we sought to determine the diagnostic value and clinical laboratory associations of autoantibodies against recombinant ribosomal P0, P1 and P2 proteins and their native heterocomplex in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Autoantibodies against recombinant ribosomal P proteins (aRibPR0, aRibPR1 and aRibPR2) and antibodies against native ribosomal P heterocomplex (aRibPNH) were determined in sera from patients with SLE (n = 163), systemic sclerosis (n = 66), Sjögren's syndrome (n = 54), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 90) and healthy donors (n = 100) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Test results were correlated to medical records, including the American College of Rheumatology criteria, the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000, laboratory data and medications of all SLE patients. RESULTS: Sensitivities of 22.0% for aRibPR0, 14.9% for aRibPR2, 14.3% for aRibPNH and 10.7% for aRibPR1 were obtained at a specificity of 99%. The assay for aRibPR0 detection demonstrated the best performance in receiver-operating characteristics analysis, with aRibPR0 detectable in 10% of anti-Smith antibody and anti-double-stranded DNA-negative sera at a specificity of 100%. ARibPR0 positivity was associated with lymphocytopenia. ARibPR1+ patients had significantly higher γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) levels than their aRibPR1- counterparts. No specific damage occurred in aRibP+ lupus patients compared with a group of age-, sex- and nephritis-matched aRibP- lupus patients within 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of antibodies against ribosomal P proteins improves the diagnosis of SLE and should therefore be implemented in upcoming criteria for the diagnosis or classification of SLE. High titers of aRibPR0 can be associated with lymphocytopenia, and high titers of aRibPR1 can be associated with elevated GGT levels. So far, there is no evidence for a prognostic value of aRibPs for damage.

Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA: dsDNA-loaded nucleosomes improve diagnosis and monitoring of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical usefulness of the new anti-double-stranded DNA nucleosome-complexed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA), which is based on dsDNA-loaded nucleosomes as antigens, with established test systems based on dsDNA or nucleosomes alone for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) diagnostics and determination of disease activity. METHODS: Sera from a cohort of 964 individuals comprising 207 SLE patients, 357 disease controls and 400 healthy donors were investigated using the Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA, Farr assay, Anti-dsDNA ELISA, Anti-nucleosome ELISA and Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence (CLIF) assay, all of which are tests available from EUROIMMUN Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG (Lübeck, Germany). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of each assay. The test results yielded by these assays in a group of 165 fully characterized SLE patients were compared with the corresponding medical records. RESULTS: The Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA was found to have a sensitivity of 60.9% and a specificity of 98.9% in all 964 individuals at the manufacturer's cutoff of 100 U/ml. At a comparable specificity of 99%, the sensitivity amounted to 59.9% for the Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA, 54.1% for the Farr assay, 53.6% for the antinucleosome ELISA and 35.8% for the anti-dsDNA ELISA. The CLIF assay had a sensitivity of 28.0% and a specificity of 98.2%. The Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA correlated mostly with global disease activity in a cross-sectional analysis. In a longitudinal analysis of 20 patients with 69 patient visits, changes in Anti-dsDNA-NcX ELISA and antinucleosome ELISA results correlated highly with changes in disease activity over time. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dsDNA-complexed nucleosomes as antigens in ELISA leads to optimized determination of diagnosis and disease activity in SLE patients and is available for clinical practice.

Sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin 1 expression in inflammatory and resident monocytes is a potential biomarker for monitoring disease activity and success of therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Type I interferon (IFN) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and is therefore considered a potential therapeutic target. This study was undertaken to establish a feasible biomarker for IFN effects with respect to disease activity and effectiveness of IFN-suppressive therapy in SLE patients. METHODS: Transcriptomes of purified monocytes from 9 SLE patients and 7 healthy controls were analyzed by Affymetrix GeneChip technology. Levels of sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin 1 (Siglec-1) (sialoadhesin, CD169) in inflammatory and resident monocytes were determined at the protein level in 38 healthy controls and 52 SLE patients, using multicolor flow cytometry. RESULTS: Transcriptomes of peripheral monocytes from SLE patients revealed a dominant type I IFN signature. Siglec-1 was identified as one of the most prominent type I IFN-regulated candidate genes. At the protein level, the frequency of Siglec-1-expressing monocyte subsets was correlated with disease activity (as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index) and was inversely correlated with levels of complement factors. Most interestingly, levels of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies were highly correlated with the percentage of resident monocytes, but not inflammatory monocytes, expressing Siglec-1. High-dose glucocorticoid treatment resulted in a dramatic reduction of Siglec-1 expression in cells from patients with active SLE. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that Siglec-1 expression in resident blood monocytes is a potential biomarker for monitoring disease activity, displaying type I IFN responses, and estimating levels of anti-dsDNA antibodies. Moreover, our results suggest that resident and inflammatory monocytes contribute differently to the process of autoantibody formation in SLE.