Clinical features of patients with connective tissue disease with anti–human upstream binding factor antibodies: A single‐center retrospective study

Anti–human upstream‐binding factor (anti‐hUBF) antibodies have been reported predominantly in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs); these have also been reported in patients without CTDs such as hepatocellular carcinoma. Because of the low frequency of expression and few case reports, the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of dermatology 2024-05, Vol.51 (5), p.704-713
Main Authors: Fushida, Natsumi, Horii, Motoki, Fujii, Ko, Mizumaki, Kie, Kitano, Tasuku, Sawada, Kaori, Numata, Natsuki, Oishi, Kyosuke, Maeda, Shintaro, Hamaguchi, Yasuhito, Watanabe, Satoshi, Matsushita, Takashi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing
Adult
Aged
Antibodies
antinuclear antibody
autoantibodies
Autoantibodies - blood
Autoantibodies - immunology
Case reports
Connective tissue
Connective tissue diseases
Connective Tissue Diseases - diagnosis
Connective Tissue Diseases - immunology
DNA topoisomerase
Female
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Humans
Immunoprecipitation
Lung diseases
Male
Middle Aged
Patients
Retrospective Studies
Rheumatology
Scleroderma
Scleroderma, Systemic - blood
Scleroderma, Systemic - complications
Scleroderma, Systemic - diagnosis
Scleroderma, Systemic - immunology
Severity of Illness Index
Statistical analysis
Systemic sclerosis
Transcription Factors
undifferentiated connective tissue disease
Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Diseases - complications
Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Diseases - immunology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Anti–human upstream‐binding factor (anti‐hUBF) antibodies have been reported predominantly in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs); these have also been reported in patients without CTDs such as hepatocellular carcinoma. Because of the low frequency of expression and few case reports, there is no consensus on the clinical significance of these antibodies. Thus, we aimed to examine the clinical features of patients with anti–hUBF antibodies and analyzed 1042 patients with clinically suspected CTDs. The presence of anti–hUBF antibodies was screened using immunoprecipitation assays. Of the 1042 patients, 19 (1.82%) tested positive for anti–hUBF antibodies; among them, 10 (56%) were diagnosed with undifferentiated CTD (UCTD), six with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and three with other diseases. Five of the 10 patients with UCTD were referred to our hospital with suspected SSc. None of the five patients fulfilled the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria, but three scored seven points, a relatively high score. Six anti–hUBF‐positive patients with SSc had a significantly lower modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) than that of anti–hUBF‐negative patients with SSc (2 [0–2] vs 7 [0–49], p 
ISSN:0385-2407
1346-8138
DOI:10.1111/1346-8138.17156