The predominant determinant of an unfavorable prognosis among Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) patients resides in the irreversible organ damage. This prospective cohort study aimed to identify the additional value of anti-nucleosome antibodies on organ damage accumulation in SLE patients.
Methods
Based on the Chinese SLE Treatment and Research group (CSTAR) registry, demographic characteristics, autoantibodies profiles, and clinical manifestations were collected at baseline. Follow-up data were collected by reviewing clinical records.
Results
Of 2481 SLE patients with full follow-up data, 663 (26.7%) were anti-nucleosome antibodies positive and 1668 (68.0%) were anti-dsDNA antibodies positive. 764 (30.8%) patients developed new organ damage during a mean follow-up of 4.31 ± 2.60 years. At baseline, patients with positive anti-nucleosome antibodies have a higher rate of lupus nephritis (50.7% vs 36.2%, p < .001). According to the multivariable Cox regression analysis, both anti-nucleosome (HR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.09-1.54, p < .001) and anti-dsDNA antibodies (HR=1.68, 95% CI, 1.38-2.05, p < .001) were associated with organ damage accumulation. Anti-nucleosome (HR = 2.51, 95% CI, 1.81-3.46, p < .001) and anti-dsDNA antibodies (HR = 1.69, 95% CI, 1.39-2.06, p < .001) were independent predictors for renal damage. Furthermore, the combination of the two antibodies can provide more accurate information about renal damage in overall SLE patients (HR = 3.19, 95% CI, 2.49-4.10, p < .001) and patients with lupus nephritis at baseline (HR = 2.86, 95% CI, 2.29-3.57, p < .001).
Conclusion
Besides anti-dsDNA antibodies, anti-nucleosome antibodies can also provide information about organ damage accrual during follow-up. The ability of co-positivity of anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA antibodies in predicting renal damage may lead to additional benefits in the follow-up of these patients.
YanivGTwigGShorDB, et al.A volcanic explosion of autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: a diversity of 180 different antibodies found in SLE patients. Autoimmun Rev2015; 14: 75–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2014.10.003.
3.
AringerMCostenbaderKDaikhD, et al.2019 European league against rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol2019; 71: 1400-1412. DOI: 10.1002/art.40930.
4.
GhiggeriGMD'AlessandroMBartolomeoD, et al.An update on antibodies to necleosome components as biomarkers of sistemic lupus erythematosus and of lupus flares. Int J Mol Sci2019; 20: 2019. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20225799.
5.
MohanCPuttermanC. Genetics and pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis. Nat Rev Nephrol2015; 11: 329–341. DOI: 10.1038/nrneph.2015.33.
HungWTChenYMLanJL, et al.Antinucleosome antibodies as a potential biomarker for the evaluation of renal pathological activity in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis. Lupus2011; 20: 1404–1410. DOI: 10.1177/0961203311417033.
8.
SuiMLinQXuZ, et al.Simultaneous positivity for anti-DNA, anti-nucleosome and anti-histone antibodies is a marker for more severe lupus nephritis. J Clin Immunol2013; 33: 378–387. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-012-9825-6.
9.
MouraCGLimaIBarbosaL, et al.Anti-C1q antibodies: association with nephritis and disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Lab Anal2009; 23: 19–23. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.20280.
10.
van der VlagJBerdenJH. Lupus nephritis: role of antinucleosome autoantibodies. Semin Nephrol2011; 31: 376–389. DOI: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2011.06.009.
11.
BruceINO'KeeffeAGFarewellV, et al.Factors associated with damage accrual in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis2015; 74: 1706–1713. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205171.
12.
SeguraBTBernsteinBSMcDonnellT, et al.Damage accrual and mortality over long-term follow-up in 300 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in a multi-ethnic British cohort. Rheumatology2020; 59: 524–533. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez292.
13.
LiMZhangWLengX, et al.Chinese SLE Treatment and Research group (CSTAR) registry: I. Major clinical characteristics of Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus2013; 22: 1192–1199. DOI: 10.1177/0961203313499086.
14.
HochbergMC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum1997; 40: 1725. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780400928.
15.
PetriMOrbaiAMAlarcónGS, et al.Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum2012; 64: 2677–2686. DOI: 10.1002/art.34473.
16.
ZhaoJBaiWZhuP, et al.Chinese SLE Treatment and Research group (CSTAR) registry VII: prevalence and clinical significance of serositis in Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus2016; 25: 652–657. DOI: 10.1177/0961203315625460.
17.
LiJLengXLiZ, et al.Chinese SLE treatment and research group registry: III. association of autoantibodies with clinical manifestations in Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Immunol Res2014; 2014: 809389. DOI: 10.1155/2014/809389.
18.
HahnBHMcMahonMAWilkinsonA, et al.American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care Res2012; 64: 797–808. DOI: 10.1002/acr.21664.
19.
BombardierCGladmanDDUrowitzMB, et al.Derivation of the SLEDAI. A disease activity index for lupus patients. The Committee on Prognosis Studies in SLE. Arthritis Rheum1992; 35: 630–640. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780350606.
20.
GladmanDGinzlerEGoldsmithC, et al.The development and initial validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum1996; 39: 363–369. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780390303.
21.
GladmanDDGoldsmithCHUrowitzMB, et al.The systemic lupus international collaborating clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus international comparison. J Rheumatol2000; 27: 373–376.
22.
GladmanDDUrowitzMBGoldsmithCH, et al.The reliability of the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum1997; 40: 809–813. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780400506.
23.
ChambersSAAllenERahmanA, et al.Damage and mortality in a group of British patients with systemic lupus erythematosus followed up for over 10 years. Rheumatology2009; 48: 673–675. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep062.
24.
JacobLViardJP. Anti-DNA antibodies and their relationships with anti-histone and anti-nucleosome specificities. Eur J Med1992; 1: 425–431.
25.
GensousNMartiABarnetcheT, et al.Predictive biological markers of systemic lupus erythematosus flares: a systematic literature review. Arthritis Res Ther2017; 19: 238. DOI: 10.1186/s13075-017-1442-6.
26.
PetriMSinghSTesfasyoneH, et al.Prevalence of flare and influence of demographic and serologic factors on flare risk in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study. J Rheumatol2009; 36: 2476–2480. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.090019.
27.
YungSCheungKFZhangQ, et al.Anti-dsDNA antibodies bind to mesangial annexin II in lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol2010; 21: 1912–1927. DOI: 10.1681/asn.2009080805.
28.
OlsonSWLeeJJPrinceLK, et al.Elevated subclinical double-stranded DNA antibodies and future proliferative lupus nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2013; 8: 1702–1708. DOI: 10.2215/cjn.01910213.
BizzaroNVillaltaDGiavarinaD, et al.Are anti-nucleosome antibodies a better diagnostic marker than anti-dsDNA antibodies for systemic lupus erythematosus? A systematic review and a study of metanalysis. Autoimmun Rev2012; 12: 97–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.002.
31.
HeidenreichUMayerGHeroldM, et al.Sensitivity and specificity of autoantibody tests in the differential diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Lupus2009; 18: 1276–1280. DOI: 10.1177/0961203309345753.
32.
Rodriguez-JimenezNAPerez-GuerreroEEGamez-NavaJI, et al.Anti-nucleosome antibodies increase the risk of renal relapse in a prospective cohort of patients with clinically inactive systemic lupus erythematosus. Sci Rep2020; 10: 12698. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69608-5.
33.
GhirardelloADoriaAZampieriS, et al.Antinucleosome antibodies in SLE: a two-year follow-up study of 101 patients. J Autoimmun2004; 22: 235–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2003.12.005.
34.
SimónJACabiedesJOrtizE, et al.Anti-nucleosome antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus of recent onset. Potential utility as a diagnostic tool and disease activity marker. Rheumatology2004; 43: 220–224. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh024.
35.
KalaajiMFentonKAMortensenES, et al.Glomerular apoptotic nucleosomes are central target structures for nephritogenic antibodies in human SLE nephritis. Kidney Int2007; 71: 664–672. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002133.
36.
YapDYLaiKN. Pathogenesis of renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus--the role of autoantibodies and lymphocytes subset abnormalities. Int J Mol Sci2015; 16: 7917–7931. DOI: 10.3390/ijms16047917.
37.
MartinMLefflerJBlomAM. Annexin A2 and A5 serve as new ligands for C1q on apoptotic cells. J Biol Chem2012; 287: 33733–33744. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.341339.
38.
KrishnanMRWangCMarionTN. Anti-DNA autoantibodies initiate experimental lupus nephritis by binding directly to the glomerular basement membrane in mice. Kidney Int2012; 82: 184–192. DOI: 10.1038/ki.2011.484.
39.
GattoMIaccarinoLGhirardelloA, et al.Clinical and pathologic considerations of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of lupus nephritogenic autoantibodies: a comprehensive review. J Autoimmun2016; 69: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2016.02.003.
40.
LopezRDavidsonJEBeebyMD, et al.Lupus disease activity and the risk of subsequent organ damage and mortality in a large lupus cohort. Rheumatology2012; 51: 491–498. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker368.
41.
MaddisonPFarewellVIsenbergD, et al.The rate and pattern of organ damage in late onset systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol2002; 29: 913-917.
42.
Reátegui-SokolovaCUgarte-GilMFGamboa-CárdenasRV, et al.Serum uric acid levels contribute to new renal damage in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Clin Rheumatol2017; 36: 845–852. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-017-3538-4.
43.
TsangASMWBultinkIEHeslingaM, et al.Both prolonged remission and Lupus Low Disease Activity State are associated with reduced damage accrual in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology2017; 56: 121–128. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew377.
44.
RekvigOP. The anti-DNA antibodies: their specificities for unique DNA structures and their unresolved clinical impact-A system criticism and a hypothesis. Front Immunol2021; 12: 808008. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.808008.
45.
RekvigOP. The dsDNA, anti-dsDNA antibody, and lupus nephritis: what we agree on, what must Be done, and what the best strategy forward could Be. Front Immunol2019; 10: 1104. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01104.
46.
AlduraibiFFatimaHHamiltonJA, et al.Lupus nephritis correlates with B cell interferon-β, anti-Smith, and anti-DNA: a retrospective study. Arthritis Res Ther2022; 24: 87. DOI: 10.1186/s13075-022-02766-1.
47.
Mejia-ViletJMZhangXLCruzC, et al.Urinary soluble CD163: a novel noninvasive biomarker of activity for lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol2020; 31: 1335–1347. DOI: 10.1681/asn.2019121285.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
