Prevalence, distribution and associations of the scleroderma capillaroscopic patterns: new insights from the Italian SPRING-SIR registry

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between disease duration and the prevalence/distribution of nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) patterns, named according to the current classification as 'early', 'active' and 'late', in a large cohort of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 1689 patients undergoing standardized NVC. Clinical-serological data and treatments were collected. Statistical comparisons and multivariable logistic regression models were applied, including analyses based on disease duration. RESULTS: The prevalence of NVC patterns was as follows: 'early' 21.6%, 'active' 47.4%, 'late' 25.7% and normal/non-specific 5.3%. The distribution by disease duration showed that the three main patterns were always present. While the 'early' and 'active' progressively decreased (from 30.3% and 51.9% in patients with ≤5 yrs, to 14.6% and 43.5% in those >10 yrs, P < 0.01), the 'late' pattern increased from 13.2% (≤5 yrs) to 36.0% (>10 yrs) (P < 0.001) and was associated with internal organ involvement, anti-topoisomerase antibodies and more therapies (P < 0.01). Conversely, the 'early' and 'active' patterns were associated with the limited-cutaneous subset (P < 0.01) and anti-centromere antibodies (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed a strong association between the 'late' pattern and skin/peripheral vascular involvement. Notably, the presence of the 'late' pattern in patients with ≤2 yrs (10.9%) was significantly associated with scleroderma renal crisis (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: SSc-NVC patterns are not strictly time-dependent and can be observed at any stage of the disease, suggesting that microvascular damage progression is heterogeneous across different disease periods. Therefore, a revised classification of NVC changes considering both disease duration and NVC severity could improve its prognostic accuracy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.