Anti-dsDNA antibodies in Brazilian patients of mainly African descent with systemic lupus erythematosus: lack of association with lupus nephritis

IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies: A neglected serological parameter in systemic lupus erythematosus

Anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) autoantibodies are archetypal biomarkers found in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although they can exist in any isotype, very little is understood about the IgA isotype for which most of our knowledge is derived from observational studies. This review article summarises our knowledge of this autoantibody isotype to date. Attention will be spent on clinical associations as well as its potential links with lupus nephritis for which there is still some controversy. Further understanding of this serological parameter may facilitate diagnosis, prognosis and treatments of systemic lupus erythematosus patients.

Anti-Double-Stranded DNA Isotypes and Anti-C1q Antibody Improve the Diagnostic Specificity of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the value of immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgM, and IgA isotypes of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti-C1q antibody in diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients and elucidate their association with disease activity and lupus nephritis.

Methods

Blood samples were obtained from 96 SLE patients, 62 other autoimmune disease patients, and 60 healthy blood donors. Anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM, and IgA isotypes and anti-C1q antibody were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Disease activity of SLE patients was assessed according to the SLE Disease Activity Index score.

Results

When specificity was greater than 90%, the sensitivity of anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM, and IgA isotypes and anti-C1q antibody in diagnosing SLE was 75%, 45%, 33%, and 49%, respectively. The prevalence of anti-dsDNA IgG (p = 0.002), anti-dsDNA IgA (p = 0.028), and anti-C1q antibody (p = 0.000) in active cases was significantly higher than those in inactive ones. In addition, the presence of anti-C1q antibody was associated with renal involvement (p = 0.032). Anti-dsDNA IgM showed no significant association with disease activity, but it was inversely linked with lupus nephritis (p = 0.005). When anti-dsDNA IgG and IgA and anti-C1q were combined to evaluate SLE disease activity, the specificity reached the highest level (90%). When anti-C1q positive was accompanied by anti-dsDNA IgM negative, the specificity of diagnosing lupus nephritis was up to 96%.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the role of anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM, and IgA isotypes and anti-C1q antibody alone or combination in diagnosing SLE. Anti-dsDNA IgG and IgA and anti-C1q were shown to be associated with disease activity, while anti-dsDNA IgM and anti-C1q were associated with lupus nephritis. When the related antibodies were combined, the diagnostic specificity was significantly higher.

Anti-dsDNA titre in female systemic lupus erythematosus patients: relation to disease manifestations, damage and antiphospholipid antibodies

Background Attempts are ongoing to unveil unresolved queries about anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (anti-dsDNA), their precise pathogenic effects and to what extent blocking them would be a useful therapeutic goal. Objectives The aim of the present study was to determine the anti-dsDNA antibodies titre in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients and investigate their relation to the disease characteristics, activity, damage and antiphospholipid autoantibodies (aPL). Methods Seventy female SLE patients and 35 age- and sex-matched controls were included. The anti-dsDNA level and aPL were measured. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and Systemic Lupus International Collaborative Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SLICC/ACR-DI) were assessed. Results The mean age of the patients was 27.5 ± 5.1 years, disease duration 7.7 ± 5.4 years, and SLEDAI and SLICC/ACR-DI scores were 6.8 ± 8.04 and 1.2 ± 1.3, respectively. Anti-dsDNA was positive in 61.4% of the patients and the titre (133.2 ± 100.5 IU/ml) was significantly higher compared to controls (22.03 ± 17.2 IU/ml) ( p < 0.0001). The anti-dsDNA level was significantly increased in those with musculoskeletal manifestations ( p = 0.007) and positive anti-β2 glycoprotein (anti-β2GP) ( p = 0.037) and decreased in those with neuropsychiatric manifestations ( p = 0.004) and those receiving cyclophosphamide (CYC) ( p = 0.013). The anti-dsDNA level tended to be higher in active patients. The anti-dsDNA titre significantly correlated with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate ( p = 0.001), anticardiolipin IgG and IgA antibodies ( p = 0.008) and anti-β2GP IgG ( p = 0.03) and IgA ( p = 0.002) and inversely with the total leucocytic count ( p < 0.0001) and SLICC/ACR-DI ( p = 0.001). Conclusion Anti-dsDNA is remarkably increased in SLE patients especially those with musculoskeletal manifestations and aPL. A protective role seems likely in those with neuropsychiatric manifestations and those receiving CYC and may form a shield against disease tissue damage.

High Avidity dsDNA Autoantibodies in Brazilian Women with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Correlation with Active Disease and Renal Dysfunction

We investigated in Brazilian women with SLE the prevalence and levels of high avidity (HA) dsDNA antibodies and tested their correlation with lupus activity and biomarkers of renal disease. We also compared these correlations to those observed with total dsDNA antibodies and antibodies against nucleosome (ANuA). Autoantibodies were detected by ELISA, while C3 and C4 levels were determined by nephelometry. Urine protein/creatinine ratio was determined, and lupus activity was measured by SLEDAI-2K. The prevalence of total and HA dsDNA antibodies was similar to but lower than that verified for ANuA. The levels of the three types of antibodies were correlated, but the correlation was more significant between HA dsDNA antibodies and ANuA. High avidity dsDNA antibodies correlated positively with ESR and SLEDAI and inversely with C3 and C4. Similar correlations were observed for ANuA levels, whereas total dsDNA antibodies only correlated with SLEDAI and C3. The levels of HA dsDNA antibodies were higher in patients with proteinuria, but their levels of total dsDNA antibodies and ANuA were unaltered. High avidity dsDNA antibodies can be found in high prevalence in Brazilian women with SLE and are important biomarkers of active disease and kidney dysfunction.

Prognosis of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and discoid lesions

BACKGROUND

It has been observed that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and discoid lesions have a milder systemic disease.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical, demographic and autoantibody profile of systemic lupus erythematosus patients with and without discoid lesions.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective study involving 288 systemic lupus erythematosus patients who met at least four classification criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for systemic lupus erythematosus, comparing the clinical, serological and demographic factors between patients with and without discoid manifestations.

RESULTS

Of the 288 patients, 13.8% had discoid lesions. Univariate analysis found no differences in the prevalence of malar rash, photosensitivity, arthritis, serositis, leukopenia, lymphopenia and hemolytic anemia or anemia of the central nervous system (p = ns). Renal lesions were more common in those without discoid lesions (p =0.016), and hemolysis (p<0.0001) was more common in those with discoid lesions. Regarding the profile of autoantibodies, only the anti-RNP antibody was more common in those with discoid events (p =0.04). In a logistic regression study, only the renal lesions and anti-RNP maintained their associations with discoid manifestations.

CONCLUSION

Patients with lesions of systemic lupus erythematosus and discoid lesions have lower prevalence of renal involvement and a greater presence of anti RNP.

Concomitance of IgM and IgG anti-dsDNA Antibodies Does Not Appear to Associate to Active Lupus Nephritis

Previous reports proposed that the IgM anti-dsDNA antibody is protective for lupus nephritis. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to compare clinical features of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients positive for IgG anti-dsDNA alone with those presenting both IgG and IgM anti-dsDNA. Anti-dsDNA antibodies, urinary examination and complement levels were assessed in the day of appointment. IgG and IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected by indirect immunofluorescence. Fifty-eight SLE patients (93.1% female, 81% European-derived, mean age 42.8±14.7 years, mean duration of disease 10.9±8 years) positive for IgG anti-dsDNA entered the study. Of those, 15 were also positive for the IgM anti-dsDNA isotype. The group with both isotypes showed significant less frequency of active nephritis (sediment changes and proteinuria) when compared to patients with IgG anti-dsDNA alone (6.7% versus 34.9%, p=0.046). These data suggest a nephroprotective role for IgM anti-dsDNA and a distinct biologic behavior for this isotype in SLE.

Anti-dsDNA antibody isotypes in systemic lupus erythematosus: IgA in addition to IgG anti-dsDNA help to identify glomerulonephritis and active disease

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of serum IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibody isotypes in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and their association with clinical features and disease activity, in a large cohort of SLE patients.

METHODS

Sera of 200 SLE patients (mean age 34±10.3 years; 26 male and 174 female; median duration of disease 115 months, range 7-378), and of 206 controls, including 19 Sjögren's syndrome, 27 rheumatoid arthritis, 26 psoriatic arthritis, 15 idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), 13 systemic sclerosis, 49 infectious diseases and 57 healthy subjects, were tested for anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM and IgA isotypes.

RESULTS

Selecting a cutoff corresponding to 95% specificity, the sensitivity of IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies in SLE was 55%, 30% and 49%, respectively; 12.5%, 1% and 7.5% of SLE patients had positive IgG, IgM or IgA isotype alone, respectively. SLE patients with glomerulonephritis showed higher levels of IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.0002), anti-dsDNA IgG/IgM (p = 0.001) and IgA/IgM (p<0.0001) ratios than patients without renal disease. No significant associations have been found between anti-dsDNA isotypes and other clinical features. IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.01) (but not IgG or IgM) and IgG/IgM ratio (p = 0.005) were significantly higher in patients with more active disease (ECLAM score >4).

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of IgA anti-dsDNA autoantibodies seems to improve our ability to diagnose SLE and to define lupus nephritis phenotype and active disease. By contrast, IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies might be protective for renal involvement. These data support the hypothesis that anti-dsDNA antibody class clustering may help to refine SLE diagnosis and prognosis.