Search

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the association of smoking with Primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS) classification and pSS diagnostic test results. We hypothesized that past and current smokers would have lower odds of being classified as having Sjögren syndrome (SS) and lower odds of having abnormal individual SS diagnostic test results compared with nonsmokers.MethodsParticipants with suspected or established pSS were enrolled into the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) registry and had oral, ocular, and rheumatologic examinations performed; blood and saliva samples collected; and labial salivary gland biopsy examinations performed; they also completed questionnaires at baseline. Logistic regression was used to determine whether smoking status was associated with pSS classification and individual pSS diagnostic test results.ResultsA total of 3514 participants were enrolled in SICCA. A total of 1541 (52.9%) met classification criteria for pSS. Compared with never smokers, current smokers had reduced odds of being classified as having pSS, reduced odds of having a focus score ≥ 1 and serologic positivity for anti-SSA/anti-SSB antibodies, and lower odds of having abnormal signs or test results of dry eye disease. Compared with never smokers, past smokers did not have a statistically significant reduction in odds of being classified as having pSS and of having abnormal individual pSS diagnostic test results.ConclusionCompared with never smokers, current smokers in the SICCA cohort had lower odds of being classified as having pSS, lower odds of exhibiting abnormal signs and test results for dry eye disease, and lower odds of having a labial salivary gland biopsy supportive of pSS classification. Such negative associations, however, do not suggest that current smoking is of any benefit with respect to pSS.

Objective To determine whether the Sjogren9s syndrome B (SSB)-positive/Sjogren9s syndrome A (SSA)-negative antibody profile is associated with key phenotypic features of SS. Methods Among registrants in the Sjogren9s International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) with possible or established SS, we compared anti-SSA/anti-SSB reactivity profiles against concurrent phenotypic features. We fitted logistic regression models to explore the association between anti-SSA/anti-SSB reactivity profile and each key SS phenotypic feature, controlling for potential confounders. Results Among 3297 participants, 2061 (63%) had negative anti-SSA/anti-SSB, 1162 (35%) had anti-SSA with or without anti-SSB, and 74 (2%) anti-SSB alone. Key SS phenotypic features were more prevalent and had measures indicative of greater disease activity in those participants with anti-SSA, either alone or with anti-SSB, than in those with anti-SSB alone or negative SSA/SSB serology. These between-group differences were highly significant and not explained by confounding by age, race/ethnicity or gender. Participants with anti-SSB alone were comparable to those with negative SSA/SSB serology in their association with these key phenotypic features. Among SICCA participants classified with SS on the basis of the American-European Consensus Group or American College of Rheumatology criteria, only 2% required the anti-SSB-alone test result to meet these criteria. Conclusions The presence of anti-SSB, without anti-SSA antibodies, had no significant association with SS phenotypic features, relative to seronegative participants. The solitary presence of anti-SSB antibodies does not provide any more support than negative serology for the diagnosis of SS. This serological profile should thus be interpreted cautiously in clinical practice and potentially eliminated from future classification criteria.

A new program for depression is instituted in the hopes of reducing the number of visits each patient makes to the emergency room in the year following treatment. Predictors include (among many others) treatment (yes/no), race, and drug and alcohol usage indices. A common and minimally invasive treatment for jaundice in newborns is exposure to light. Yet the cost of this is high, mainly because of longer hospital stays, which are expensive. Predictors of the cost include race, gestational age, and birthweight.