Anti-centromere antibody-positive XXXX : A distinct clinical subgroup?

@entity1 @entity17351 @entity627 @entity6016 @entity1669 @entity2407 @entity244 @entity195 @entity785
AIM: To investigate whether @entity1 with @entity244 ( @entity244 ) can be distinguished based on the positivity of anti-centromere antibody (ACA), and if so, whether the subgroups differ in their clinical and laboratory features. METHODS: Eleven @entity1 with ACA-positive and 71 @entity1 ACA-negative @entity244 were examined. All @entity1 had minor salivary gland biopsy; sociodemographic data, glandular and extraglandular manifestations, and laboratory findings, including autoantibodies, complement and immunoglobulin levels, were analyzed. European League Against @entity627 activity index (ESSDAI) and @entity195 damage index (SSDDI) were also measured. RESULTS: The prevalence of ACA among @entity244 @entity1 was 13.4%. ACA-positive @entity244 @entity1 had a higher prevalence of @entity2407 , @entity17351 and @entity1669 and a lower prevalence of anti-SSA/Ro and anti- @entity6016 /La antibodies compared to ACA-negative @entity1 . Disease activity was higher in ACA-positive @entity1 than in ACA-negative @entity1 , but the damage index did not differ between the two groups. None of the @entity1 who originally had ACA evolved to having full-blown @entity785 . CONCLUSION: @entity1 with @entity244 who have ACA differ from classic @entity244 @entity1 in several clinical and laboratory parameters. ACA should be considered one of the pathogenically relevant autoantibodies for @entity244 .
