OBJECTIVE: Disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is typically monitored by measuring serum C3 and C4. However, these proteins have limited utility as lupus biomarkers, because they are substrates rather than products of complement activation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of measuring the erythrocyte-bound complement activation products, erythrocyte-bound C3d (E-C3d) and E-C4d, compared with that of serum C3 and C4 for monitoring disease activity in patients with SLE. METHODS: The levels of E-C3d and E-C4d were measured by flow cytometry in 157 patients with SLE, 290 patients with other diseases, and 256 healthy individuals. The patients with SLE were followed up longitudinally. Disease activity was measured at each visit, using the validated Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM) and the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI). RESULTS: At baseline, patients with SLE had higher median levels of E-C3d and E-C4d (P < 0.0001) in addition to higher within-patient and between-patient variability in both E-C3d and E-C4d when compared with the 2 non-SLE groups. In a longitudinal analysis of patients with SLE, E-C3d, E-C4d, serum C3, and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies were each significantly associated with the SLAM and SELENA-SLEDAI. In a multivariable analysis, E-C4d remained significantly associated with these SLE activity measures after adjusting for serum C3, C4, and anti-dsDNA antibodies; however, E-C3d was associated with the SLAM but not with the SELENA-SLEDAI. CONCLUSION: Determining the levels of the erythrocyte-bound complement activation products, especially E-C4d, is an informative measure of SLE disease activity as compared with assessing serum C4 levels and should be considered for monitoring disease activity in patients with SLE.
OBJECTIVE: Disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is typically monitored by measuring serum C3 and C4. However, these proteins have limited utility as lupus biomarkers, because they are substrates rather than products of complement activation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of measuring the erythrocyte-bound complement activation products, erythrocyte-bound C3d (E-C3d) and E-C4d, compared with that of serum C3 and C4 for monitoring disease activity in patients with SLE. METHODS: The levels of E-C3d and E-C4d were measured by flow cytometry in 157 patients with SLE, 290 patients with other diseases, and 256 healthy individuals. The patients with SLE were followed up longitudinally. Disease activity was measured at each visit, using the validated Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM) and the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI). RESULTS: At baseline, patients with SLE had higher median levels of E-C3d and E-C4d (P < 0.0001) in addition to higher within-patient and between-patient variability in both E-C3d and E-C4d when compared with the 2 non-SLE groups. In a longitudinal analysis of patients with SLE, E-C3d, E-C4d, serum C3, and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies were each significantly associated with the SLAM and SELENA-SLEDAI. In a multivariable analysis, E-C4d remained significantly associated with these SLE activity measures after adjusting for serum C3, C4, and anti-dsDNA antibodies; however, E-C3d was associated with the SLAM but not with the SELENA-SLEDAI. CONCLUSION: Determining the levels of the erythrocyte-bound complement activation products, especially E-C4d, is an informative measure of SLE disease activity as compared with assessing serum C4 levels and should be considered for monitoring disease activity in patients with SLE.
Authors: Jill P Buyon; Michelle A Petri; Mimi Y Kim; Kenneth C Kalunian; Jennifer Grossman; Bevra H Hahn; Joan T Merrill; Lisa Sammaritano; Michael Lockshin; Graciela S Alarcón; Susan Manzi; H Michael Belmont; Anca D Askanase; Lisa Sigler; Mary Anne Dooley; Joan Von Feldt; W Joseph McCune; Alan Friedman; Jane Wachs; Mary Cronin; Michelene Hearth-Holmes; Mark Tan; Frederick Licciardi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: T E Mollnes; H J Haga; J G Brun; E W Nielsen; A Sjöholm; G Sturfeldt; U Mårtensson; K Bergh; O P Rekvig Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Susan Manzi; Jeannine S Navratil; Margie J Ruffing; Chau-Ching Liu; Natalya Danchenko; Sarah E Nilson; Shanthi Krishnaswami; Dale E S King; Amy H Kao; Joseph M Ahearn Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-11
Authors: Takashi Muroya; Lakshmi Kannan; Ionita C Ghiran; Sergey S Shevkoplyas; Ziv Paz; Maria Tsokos; Jurandir J Dalle Lucca; Nathan I Shapiro; George C Tsokos Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chau-Ching Liu; Susan Manzi; Amy H Kao; Jeannine S Navratil; Joseph M Ahearn Journal: Rheum Dis Clin North Am Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.670
Authors: Ana Belén Rodríguez-Cambrón; Juana Jiménez-Jiménez; María Ángeles Blázquez-Cañamero; Francis Rey Pazos; Cristina Macía-Villa; María Alcalde-Villar; Paz Collado-Ramos; Félix Manuel Cabero Del Pozo; Eva Álvarez-Andrés; Ana Cruz-Valenciano Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.980