Home
Scholarly Works
Clinical correlates of CENP-A and CENP-B...
Journal article

Clinical correlates of CENP-A and CENP-B antibodies in a large cohort of patients with systemic sclerosis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical phenotypes of centromeric proteins (CENP)-A- and CENP-B-positive patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and to compare them to anticentromere antibody (ACA)-positive and negative SSc patients. METHODS: Sera samples were collected from 802 patients with SSc enrolled in a multicenter cohort study. Antibodies to CENP-A and B were detected by ELISA, and ACA by indirect immunofluorescence. Associations with clinical and other serological manifestations of SSc were investigated. RESULTS: CENP-A antibodies were detected in 276 (34%), CENP-B in 286 (36%), and ACA in 279 (35%) patients. Patients having ACA, CENP-A, and/or CENP-B resembled each other and differed from the remainder of the cohort in the following respects: older chronologically and at disease onset; more commonly women; more likely to have limited disease and lower skin scores; less likely to have finger ulcers, digital tuft resorption, or finger contractures; more likely to have pulmonary hypertension; less likely to have interstitial lung disease, scleroderma renal crisis, inflammatory arthritis, and inflammatory myositis; and having lower overall disease severity. CENP-A and/or B status was predictive of the extent of skin involvement over time. Patients with limited disease who were CENP-A-negative at baseline were more likely to progress to diffuse disease compared to CENP-A-positive patients (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.37, 4.85, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Clinical immunology laboratories are increasingly using high-throughput ELISA tests for CENP antibodies, with or without ACA detected by indirect immunofluorescence. The phenotype of CENP-A and/or B-positive patients is generally similar to that associated with ACA.

Authors

Hudson M; Mahler M; Pope J; You D; Tatibouet S; Steele R; Baron M; Fritzler M

Journal

The Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 787–794

Publisher

The Journal of Rheumatology

Publication Date

April 1, 2012

DOI

10.3899/rheum.111133

ISSN

0315-162X

Contact the Experts team