Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter March 31, 2024

Clinical implications of seropositive and seronegative autoantibody status in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A comparative multicentre observational study

  • Nevin Hammam EMAIL logo , Passant N. El-Husseiny , Suzan S. Al-Adle , Nermeen Samy , Nora Y. Elsaid , Dina F. El-Essawi , Eman F. Mohamed , Samar M. Fawzy , Samah A. El Bakry , Maha Nassr , Samah I. Nasef , Hanan M. El-Saadany , Shereen Elwan , Nada M. Gamal , Abdelhfeez Moshrif , Osman Hammam , Rawhya R. El Shereef , Faten Ismail , Samar Tharwat , Doaa Mosad Mosa , Mervat I Abd Elazeem , Enas A. Abdelaleem , Tamer A. Gheita and on behalf of The Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR) Rheumatoid Arthritis (ECR-RA) Study Group

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) have been used to improve the diagnosis and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, their association with RA disease phenotypes, individually and in combination, is not well studied. The aim of the study was to compare patients’ and disease characteristics, activity and severity in double seronegative (DNRA), single seropositive RF, single seropositive anti-CCP and double seropositive (DPRA) patients.

Methods

Adults subjects with RA from Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR) database who had RF and anti-CCP results available were included. Demographic, clinical features, disease activity score 28 (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and laboratory data were collected and compared among different RA groups.

Results

5268 RA patients with mean age of 44.9±11.6 years, and 4477 (85%) were females. 2900 (55%) had DPRA, 892 (16.9%) had single positive RF, 597 (11.3%) had single positive anti-CCP while 879 (16.7%) had DNRA. Patients with DPRA had significantly high percentage of metabolic syndrome (19.3%, P < 0.001), and functional impairment using HAQ (P = 0.01). Older age (RRR [relative risk ratio]: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.0, 1.0, P = 0.029), greater DAS28 (RRR: 1.51, 95%CI: 1.2, 1.9, P < 0.001), higher steroid use (RRR: 2.4, 95%CI: 1.36, 4.25, P = 0.002) were at higher risk of DPRA while longer disease duration (RRR: 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.16, P = 0.017) and fibromyalgia syndrome (RRR: 2.54, 95%CI: 1.10, 5.88, P = 0.028) were associated with higher odds of single positive RF status.

Conclusion

Dual antibody-positive status has higher disease activity and severity, and higher chance of development of metabolic syndrome; highlighting the implicated role of inflammation, atherogenesis and cardiovascular disease risk in RA.

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterized by arthritis and subsequent destruction.[1] The diverse spectrum of RA is associated with female predominance.[2] RA is characterized by the production of autoantibodies, rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP), that provide clues to the underlying disease pathophysiology. RF, an autoantibody directed against the Fc part of IgG, is an important serological marker for the diagnosis of RA in everyday clinical practice. During the last decade, multiple antibodies have been identified in RA against the citrullinated peptides including IgG, IgA, IgM.[3] Anti-CCP has been emerging as a highly specific marker in RA diagnosis and prognosis.[4] Both tests are sensitive; however, anti-CCP is more specific for RA diagnosis.[5] The presence of RF positivity or anti-CCP is incorporated and weighed in the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA.[6]

Researchers have confirmed the significance of RF and anti-CCP for the early diagnosis of RA[7] and disease activity evaluation.[8] Despite this rising importance of autoantibodies in RA, there has been substantial discrepancy whether seropositive RA has more severe disease spectrum compared to seronegative RA. Higher disease activity and impaired physical function in double seropositive RA (RA and anti-CCP) at baseline, in addition to more radiographic progression has been described.[9] In contrast, others reported severer activity[10] and radiographic progression in seronegative RA.[11] Bizzaro et al.[12] found that anti-CCP levels were highly related to early RA but not to age and gender. Egyptian RA patients with high titers of RF and anti-CCP were associated with impairment in the physical function and higher steroid doses compared to those with low titers.[13]

Both of these antibodies, singly or in combination, may be representatives of different RA specific diseases features and drug responsiveness. Thus, anti-CCP and RF are providing potential different RA disease phenotypes. The aim of the current work was to assess the frequency of positive RF and anti-CCP singly or in combination, and to explore the clinical profile (demographic factors, disease characteristics, activity and severity, and laboratory features) associated with each antibody status RA groups: single-positive RF, single-positive anti-CCP, double-positive RF+/anti-CCP+ (DPRA) and double negative RA (DNRA). Factors associated with seropositive status were also well thought out.

Patients and Methods

This study is a multicentre observational study of the Egyptian College of Rheumatology-RA study group (ECR-RA) study, which has been described in detail elsewhere.[2] Adult patients with RA were recruited between September 2018 till December 2021. Data were extracted from the ECR-RA database for patients with diagnosis of RA (N = 10, 364) confirmed using the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria.[6] Patients with missing RF or anti-CCP data were excluded (N = 5096). Patients provided informed consents to participate, and the ECR-RA study was approved by the Scientific Research and Ethical Committee and in accordance to the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

All patients were subjected to full history taking and clinical examination including body mass index (BMI). Patients’ demographic data including age, sex and disease characteristics as well as systems involved were collected. The major clinical features of RA including arthritis, mucous ulcer, ocular features (keratoconjunctivitis sicca, episcleritis, scleritis), neurologic manifestations (depression, peripheral neuropathy), vasculitis (cutaneous, system vasculitis), gastrointestinal manifestations (abdominal pain, hepatomegaly, elevated transaminase, autoimmune hepatitis), cardiovascular manifestations (pericarditis/pericardial effusion, myocarditis, endocarditis, valvular insufficiency), chest manifestations (pleurisy/pleural effusion, pulmonary infiltrates), and renal manifestations (proteinuria, hematuria, elevated serum creatinine).

The disease activity score-28 (DAS-28)[14] and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ)[15] were assessed. Comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, metabolic syndrome (MetS), hepatitis C virus (HCV), thyroid dysfunction and bronchial asthma were recorded. Current medications use including synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in addition to steroids were recorded. The laboratory investigations including complete blood count (CBC), liver and kidney function tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and lipid profile panel were recorded. RF and anti-CCP presence were determined.

Patients were grouped according to the autoantibodies (RF and anti-CCP) status; DNRA was defined as absence of both RF and anti-CCP; DPRA was defined as presence of both RF and anti-CCP, single-positive RF and single-positive anti-CCP.

Statistical analysis

It was performed using Stata statistical software version 15 (Stata-Corp). Descriptive analyses were performed. Continuous variables were expressed as means (standard deviations), or medians (interquartile range). Categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. Patients in different groups were compared using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or chi-square as appropriate, followed with pairwise comparisons of means to compute all differences of means of variables between individual groups. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent variables that would predict single and double positivity autoantibody status. Results are summarized as relative risk ratios (RRR) and confidence intervals (CI). Two-sided p-values were considered significant at < 0.05.

Results

The characteristics and comparisons between each RA subgroups according to RF and anti-CCP status are presented in tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. A total of 5268 patients from the ECR-RA database were included in the study, mean age was 44.9±11.6 years, and 4477 were females (85%) and 791 were males (15%). The mean DAS28 and HAQ scores were 4.4±1.4 and 0.9±0.6 respectively. 2900 (55%) had DPRA, 892 (16.9%) had single positive RF, and 597 (11.3%) single positive anti-CCP. Both antibodies were negative in 879 (16.7%) of the patients.

Patients with single positive anti-CCP were younger (42.5 years) compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Female: male ratio was varied between groups; however, the frequency of males was significantly higher in DPRA (P = 0.001). Smoking was significantly more frequent in single positive RF group (P = 0.006). Further demographic characteristic information for each RA group is provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of the rheumatoid arthritis patients and comparison of different groups regarding demographic, and comorbidities according to autoantibodies status.

Parameter Mean ±SD or n (%) Rheumatoid arthritis patients

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n = 4389)

All (n = 5268) DNRA (n = 879) DPRA (n = 2900) RF+/anti-CCP- (n = 892) anti-CCP+/RF- (n = 597) P value
Demographics
Age (years) 44.9 ± 11.6 43.8 ± 12.2 45.6 ± 11.3a 45.2 ± 12a 42.5 ± 10.9b,c <0.0001
Female 4477 (85) 770 (87.6) 2416 (83.3)a 764 (85.7) 527 (88.3)b 0.001
Body mass index 28.6±5.3 28.4 ± 5.6 28.8 ± 5.2 28.4 ± 5.3a 27.8 ± 5.5b 0.02
Smoking 402/3625 (11.1) 73/572 (12.8) 218/2076 (10.5) 84/604 (13.9) 27/369 (7.3)a,c 0.006
Comorbidities
Diabetes mellitus 418/5038 (8.3) 76/873 (8.7) 229/2701 (8.5) 66/889 (7.4) 47/575 (8.2) 0.8
Hypertension 592/5038 (11.8) 90/873 (10.3) 317/2701 (11.7) 118/889 (13.2) 67/575 (11.7) 0.3
Metabolic syndrome 297/1824 (16.3) 38/265 (14.3) 207/1074 (19.3) 30/324 (9.3)b 22/161 (13.7) <0.0001
HCV infection 37/5038 (0.7) 2/873 (0.2) 16/2701 (0.6) 17/889 (1.9)a,b 2/575 (0.4)c <0.0001
Bronchial asthma 26/5038 (0.5) 5/873 (0.6) 13/2701 (0.5) 6/889 (0.7) 2/575 (0.4) 0.8
Thyroid dysfunction 83/5038 (1.7) 14/873 (1.6) 52/2701 (1.9) 12/889 (1.4) 5/575 (0.9) 0.7
  1. DNRA, double seronegative RA; DPRA, double seropositive RA; RF, rheumatoid factor; Anti-CCP, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide; HCV, hepatitis C virus. Statistically significant P values are in bold. aSignificantly different from DNRA, bSignificantly different from DPRA, cSignificantly different from RF+/anti-CCP-.

Tables 1 and 2 lists the significant differences of the most important clinical and laboratory features between each RA groups. Patients with single positive anti-CCP were younger (42.5 years) and had an earlier age of disease onset (36.5 years) compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Patients with DPRA had significantly higher frequency of MetS (19.3%, P < 0.001), arthritis (68.7%, P < 0.001), anemia (68.9%, P < 0.0001), and functional impairment (P = 0.01). The percentage of patients with ocular (22.3%), central nervous system (12.6%) and cardiovascular disease (14.5%) were significantly more frequent in DNRA (P = 0.03, P = 0.0006 and P = 0.005 respectively). Among discordant antibody status, with only one antibody positive, patients with either positive anti-CCP or RF presented with higher fibromyalgia syndrome (30% and 26.9% respectively, P < 0.0001); however, patients with single positive RF presented with higher gastrointestinal diseases (36.2%, P < 0.0001) and HCV (P < 0.0001).

Table 2

Clinical characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients and comparison of different groups regarding the clinical characteristics, disease activity and severity according to autoantibodies status

Parameter Mean ±SD or n (%) Rheumatoid arthritis patients

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n = 4389)

All (n = 5268) DNRA (n = 879) DPRA (n = 2900) RF+/anti-CCP- (n = 892) anti-CCP+/RF- (n = 597) P value
Disease duration 6.37 ± 5.5 5.8 ± 5.5 6.5 ± 5.4 a 6.8 ± 5.8 a 6.03 ± 5 c <0.0001
Age at onset 38.5 ± 11.1 38.1 ± 11.5 39.2 ± 10.8 38.3 ± 11.9 36.5 ± 10.3a,b,c <0.0001
Arthritis 2339/2859 (81.8) 351/461 (76.1) 1344/1551 (86.7)a 419/553 (75.8)b 225/294 (76.5)b <0.0001
RA nodules 287/3008 (9.5) 44/446 (9.9) 161/1771 (9.1) 38/449 (8.5) 44/342 (12.9) 0.2
Mucous ulcers 67/1145 (5.9) 13/143 (9.1) 26/681 (4.1) 8/199 (4)a 18/122 (14.8)b,c <0.0001
Ocular 571/3118 (18.3) 113/507 (22.3) 285/1710 (16.7)a 106/554 (19.1) 67/347 (19.3) 0.03
Sjogren’s syndrome 492/3187 (15.4) 75/449 (16.7) 272/1899 (14.3) 94/488 (19.3)b 51/351 (14.5)b 0.05
Neurological manifestations 267/2945 (9.1) 52/414 (12.6) 142/1761 (8.1)a 52/467 (11.1) 21/303 (6.9)a 0.006
Vasculitis 68/2502 (2.7) 10/341 (2.9) 43/1534 (2.8) 6/369 (1.6) 9/258 (3.5) 0.5
Gastrointestinal manifestations 635/2472 (25.7) 96/401 (23.9) 312/1382 (22.6) 163/450 (36.2)a,b 64/239 (26.8)c <0.0001
Cardiovascular manifestations 333/3180 (10.5) 76/525 (14.5) 158/1740 (9.1)a 63/562 (11.2) 36/353 (10.2) 0.005
Pulmonary manifestations 453/3154 (14.4) 75/462 (16.2) 239/1840 (12.9) 82/507 (16.2) 57/345 (16.5) 0.08
Osteoporosis 37/5038 (0.7) 2/873 (0.2) 24/2701 (0.9) 8/889 (0.9) 3/575 (0.5) 0.2
Fibromyalgia 446/2025 (22) 51/298 (17.1) 219/1101 (19.9) 101/376 (26.9)a,b 75/250 (30)a,b <0.0001
Renal manifestations 150/2899 (5.2) 31/454 (6.8) 79/1622 (4.9) 25/506 (4.9) 15/317 (4.7) 0.4
Anemia 873/1389 (62.9) 88/182 (48.4) 630/914 (68.9)a 76/140 (54.3)b 79/153 (51.6)b <0.0001
DAS28 4.4 ± 1.4 4.4 ± 1.5 4.4 ± 1.4 4.4 ± 1.4 4.3 ± 1.4 0.2
HAQ 0.9 ± 0.6 0.9 ± 0.7 1.0 ± 0.6 0.9 ± 0.6 0.8 ± 0.5b 0.01
  1. DNRA, double seronegative RA; DPRA, double seropositive RA; RF, rheumatoid factor; Anti-CCP, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide; DAS-28, disease activity score28; HAQ, health assessment questionnaire. statistically significant P values are in bold. aSignificantly different from DNRA, bSignificantly different from DPRA, cSignificantly different from RF+/anti-CCP-.

The percentage of patients with steroids use was higher among DPRA patients (72.2%, P = 0.01); while those with DNRA were most likely to use sulfasalazine (59.6%, P < 0.001). Patients with single positive RF were less likely to use methotrexate (69.2%, P = 0.002)(Table 4).

Table 3

Laboratory Characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients and comparison of different groups according to RF and anti-CCP autoantibody status

Parameter Mean ±SD or n (%) Rheumatoid arthritis patients

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n=4389)

All (n = 5268) DNRA (n = 879) DPRA (n = 2900) RF+/anti-CCP- (n = 892) anti-CCP+/RF- (n = 597) P value
Hb (g/dL) 11.5 ± 1.4 11.7 ± 1.4 11.4 ± 1.3a 11.6 ± 1.5b 11.7 ± 1.4b <0.0001
TLC×103 (cell/mm3) 6.9 ± 2.3 6.9 ± 2.6 6.9 ± 2.3 6.9 ± 2.3 7.1 ± 2.3 0.5
Platelets×103 (cell/mm3) 294.2 ± 92.4 286 ± 83.1 298.2 ± 95.8a 288.1 ± 91.3b 297.3 ± 90.1 0.004
ESR (mm/1st hour) 44.1 ± 27.9 41.2 ± 25.9 45.8 ± 29.4a 45.7 ± 26.4a 38.6 ± 24.9b,c <0.0001
Positive CRP 3139/4220 (74.4) 427/597 (71.5) 1896/2490 (76.14) 494/649 (76.12) 322/484 (66.5)b, c <0.0001
ALT (U/L) 24.4 ± 13.9 24 ± 20.9 24.8 ± 12.9 24.3 ± 11.4 23.0 ± 10.8 0.2
AST (U/L) 25.8 ± 13.1 25.3 ± 17.8 26.6 ± 12.6 24.6 ± 10.9 24.1 ± 12.3 0.001
Urea (mg/dL) 23.6 ± 16.2 23.1 ± 17.5 23.2 ± 17.2 25 ± 13.7 22.8 ± 14.9 0.4
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.8 ± 0.3 0.75 ± 0.3 0.76 ± 0.2 0.77 ± 0.2 0.76 ± 0.2 0.6
SUA (mg/dL) 4.7 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 1.5 4.7 ± 1.2 4.6 ± 1.4 4.9 ± 1.5 0.04
Lipid profile:
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 197.1 ± 65.8 192.6 ± 67.9 204.4 ± 61.7 169.2 ± 78.9a,b 199.6 ± 54.9c <0.0001
LDL (mg/dL) 102.3 ± 40.7 105.3 ± 44.2 107.1 ± 36.6 90.0 ± 47.7 100.9 ± 33.2 <0.0001
HDL (mg/dL) 56.7 ± 30.9 58.4 ± 33.8 56.6 ± 27.8 53.5 ± 34.2 60.7 ± 32.2 0.1
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 122.6 ± 55.8 117.7 ± 61.1 137.3 ± 52.5a 98.5 ± 55.2a,b 112.6 ± 43.4b <0.0001
  1. DNRA, Double seronegative RA; DPRA, Double seropositive RA; RF, Rheumatoid factor; Anti-CCP, Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide; Hb, Hemoglobin; TLC, Total leucocyte count; ESR, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; AST, Aspartate aminotransferase; SUA, Serum uric acid; LDL, Low-density lipoprotein; HDL, High-density lipoprotein; ANA, Antinuclear. Statistically significant p values are in bold. aSignificantly different from DNRA, bSignificantly different from DPRA, cSignificantly different from RF+/anti-CCP-.

Table 4

Characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients and comparison of different groups regarding the medications use according to RF and anti-CCP autoantibody status

Parameter Mean ±SD or n (%) Rheumatoid arthritis patients

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n=4389)

All (n = 5268) DNRA (n = 879) 0 DPRA (n = 2900) 1 RF+/anti-CCP- (n = 892) 2 anti-CCP+/RF- (n = 597) 3 P value
Steroids 3104/4425 (70.2) 440/646 (68.1) 1849/2560 (72.2) 468/722 (64.8) 347/497 (69.8)b 0.01
Methotrexate 3383/4525 (74.8) 494/663 (74.5) 1984/2606 (76.1) 510/737 (69.2)b 395/519 (76.1)c 0.002
Leflunomide 2024/4005 (50.5) 306/543 (56.4) 1160/2376 (48.8)a 342/654 (52.3) 216/432 (50) 0.01
Sulfasalazine 156/434 (35.9) 28/47 (59.6) 13/37 (35.1)a 23/42 (54.8)b 13/37 (35.1) <0.0001
Cyclophosphamide 43/2014 (2.1) 5/282 (1.8) 27/1219 (2.2) 9/342 (2.6) 2/171 (1.2) 0.7
Azathioprine 48/2237 (2.2) 9/301 (2.9) 30/1372 (2.2) 7/383 (1.8) 2/181 (1.1) 0.5
Mycophenolate mofetil 11/1984 (0.5) 1/276 (0.4) 5/1203 (0.4) 5/338 (1.5) 0/176 (0) 0.08
Cyclosporine A 5/1863 (0.3) 0/241 (0) 4/1185 (0.3) 0/298 (0) 1/139 (0.7) 0.4
Biologics 354/3095 (11.4) 46/401 (11.5) 225/1895 (11.9) 57/477 (11.9) 26/322 (8.1) 0.3
Colchicine 35/1875 (1.9) 8/247 (3.2) 19/1188 (1.6) 4/299 (1.3) 4/141 (2.8) 0.2
  1. DNRA, double seronegative RA; DPRA, double seropositive RA; RF, rheumatoid factor; Anti-CCP, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide; HCV, hepatitis C virus. Statistically significant P values are in bold. aSignificantly different from DNRA, bSignificantly different from DPRA, cSignificantly different from RF+/anti-CCP-.

Table 5 summarizes the multinomial logistic regression. Patients with older age (RRR: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.0, 1.0, P = 0.029), greater DAS28 (RRR: 1.51, 95%CI: 1.2, 1.9, P < 0.001), higher steroid use (RRR: 2.4, 95%CI: 1.36, 4.25, P = 0.002) were at higher odds of DPRA, while, subjects with lower MTX (methotrexate) (RRR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.13, 0.65, P = 0.003) and leflunomide (RRR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.31, 0.99, P = 0.046) use were at lower risk of falling into the DPRA group. Subjects with longer disease duration (RRR: 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.16, P = 0.017), and FMS (fibromyalgia) (RRR: 2.54, 95%CI: 1.10, 5.88, P= 0.028) were associated with higher odds of RF+/ anti-CCP-status.

Table 5

Multinomial logistic regression analyses of positive RF and/or anti-CCP as a risk factor among patients with RA in ECR-RA

Variables Double positive RF+/anti-CCP- RF-/anti-CCP+



RRR (95%CI) P value RRR (95%CI) P value RRR (95%CI) P value
Double negative Ref Ref Ref
Age 1.03 (1.00, 1.05) 0.029 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) 0.677 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) 0.615
Sex (Male) 1.59 (0.64, 3.97) 0.311 0.87 (0.29, 2.63) 0.806 1.48 (0.51, 4.27) 0.465
Disease duration 1.06 (0.99, 1.12) 0.077 1.08 (1.01, 1.16) 0.017 0.98 (0.91, 1.07) 0.680
Smoking 1.62 (0.29, 9.18) 0.584 3.91 (0.59, 26.10) 0.159 1.76 (0.25, 12.56) 0.573
Arthritis 0.87 (0.38, 2.07) 0.744 0.74 (0.31, 1.75) 0.492 0.63 (0.25, 1.61) 0.338
Ocular 1.57 (0.55, 4.50) 0.399 1.59 (0.51, 4.98) 0.424 1.23 (0.33, 4.5) 0.757
CVS 1.08 (0.37, 3.17) 0.891 0.42 (0.10, 1.74) 0.232 1.44 (0.39, 5.29) 0.581
FMS 1.88 (0.84, 4.20) 0.122 2.54 (1.10, 5.88) 0.028 0.92 (0.32, 2.63) 0.882
MetS 6.02 (0.74, 48.67) 0.092 4.22 (0.46, 38.78) 0.204 1.05 (0.06, 18.03) 0.975
DAS28 1.51 (1.20, 1.90) <0.001 1.16 (0.90, 1.49) 0.240 1.10 (0.84, 1.45) 0.491
Steroid use 2.41 (1.36, 4.25) 0.002 0.93 (0.48, 1.78) 0.831 0.99 (0.49, 2.02) 0.990
MTX use 0.29 (0.13, 0.65) 0.003 0.49 (0.20, 1.20) 0.119 0.50 (0.19, 1.33) 0.166
LFN use 0.56 (0.31, 0.99) 0.046 1.16 (0.59, 2.26) 0.661 0.93 (0.45, 1.90) 0.842
Anemia 1.54 (0.86, 2.74) 0.143 1.30 (0.68, 2.46) 0.420 0.99 (0.49, 2.01) 0.998
PLT 1.00 (0.98, 1.00) 0.703 0.99 (0.99, 1.00) 0.476 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 0.233
  1. RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RF, rheumatoid factor; Anti-CCP, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide; RRR, relative risk ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; CVS, cardiovascular; FMS, fibromyalgia; MetS, metabolic syndrome; DAS28, disease activity score 28; MTX, methotrexate; LFN, leflunomide; PLT, platelets. Statistically significant P values are in bold.

Discussion

The field of autoantibodies has brought major insights in rheumatology. It resulted in better understanding of the pathophysiology in RA and the development of the new 2010 ACR/ EULAR classification for RA. Although autoantibodies, RF and anti-CCP, have prognostic significance in RA;[4] their relation to other disease characteristics remains a debate. The disease phenotype in seronegative and seropositive RA has been previously presented; though comparing groups in view of single-positive serology (RF or anti-CCP), double-negative and double-positive serology has not been thoroughly examined. This work is a large multicentre observational study including 5268 adult RA patients who had results of RF and anti-CCP available, recruited from the ECR-RA study database. A key objective was to compare demographic, clinical, laboratory features, disease activity and severity of Egyptian RA patients across RA groups with different autoantibodies status (DPRA, DNRA, single positive RF and anti-CCP).

In the current study, patients with DPRA clearly showed higher disease activity and severity in regards to those with dual negative antibodies status. Additionally, markers of systemic inflammation including ESR, CRP, platelet count were significantly higher in patients with DPRA versus others, denoting more aggressive disease. In line, high disease activity and impaired physical function were reported in RF+/anti-CCP+ versus seronegative RA patients.[9] In consistency, DAS-28, ESR and CRP were significantly higher in patients with DPRA versus DNRA, single positive RF and anti-CCP.[16] Anti-CCP is associated with greater disease activity and poorer remission rates.[17] The DAS-28 was comparable among seronegative (double negative for RF and anti-CCP) and seropositive patients; however, more joint damage was reported with seropositive RA.[18] Conversely, significantly higher DAS-28, HAQ score, more radiographic progression and slower response to treatment were reported in negative RF/anti-CCP versus positive RF/anti-CCP.[19] Conflicting results are reported regarding the impact of RF versus anti-CCP positivity on disease activity; anti-CCP positive patients had lowest disease activity and disability regardless RF status; and achieved faster remission.[20]

The presence of autoantibodies is a distinctive feature of RA. Several studies have indicated the clinical relevance of RF and anti-CCP antibodies in RA. High titers of RF have been associated with more aggressive articular disease, and higher prevalence of extra-articular manifestations, especially when in combination with ACPA.[16,21,22] In the present study, ocular manifestations were found to be higher in patients with DNRA (22.3%). In previous studies, there was no relationship between RF and ocular surface involvements.[23,24] However, there was a significant association between the presence of anti-CCP and ocular manifestations related to RA.[25] Patients with either positive anti-CCP or RF presented with higher fibromyalgia syndrome, which is also indicative of clinical active disease. Positivity of RF and anti-CCP was evaluated between patients with or without FMS in RA patients. Rheumatoid factor was positive in 67.9% and 75.5% and anti-CCP was positive in 71.7% and 76.5% of the patients with or without FMS, respectively (P > 0.05).[26] The current study indicates that there is no significant association between neurological manifestations in patients with RA and autoantibodies positivity. In some cases, but not all, the presence of ACPA and RF autoantibodies can be detected in the pathologic analysis of neurologic lesions in patients with RA.[27] In the current study, presence of mucous ulcer was significantly higher in patients with anti-CCP antibodies. Recent data are suggestive of a role for mucosal surfaces in the development of auto-immune responses (autoantibodies production) associated with the development of RA.[28] Indeed differences in RA-patients with and without RF) and anti-CCP have been observed such as differences in clinical presentations.

In the current work, patients with single positive anti-CCP were significantly younger and had an earlier age of disease onset compared to other groups. Significant association between gender and seropositivity was found with female pre-dominance across all groups. On regression, older age was significantly associated with DPRA. It is widely accepted that RA encompasses great heterogeneity. Both antibodies may represent different RA diseases with specific courses and drug responsiveness. Therefore, RF and anti-CCP cannot be used synonymously or interchangeably as they represent different disease entities.

In the current work, MetS was the most prevalent comorbidity in DPRA (19.3%). On comparing seronegative and sero-positive RA patients, hypertension, type II diabetes and dyslipidemia were the most frequent comorbidities and similar. [29] Currently, significant association was found between the type of RA and comorbidities in which MetS was significantly more frequent in DPRA. In addition, the extra-articular manifestations that often determine the severity and comorbidity of RA are also closely associated with anti-CCP positivity.[30] Both anti-CCP and RF have been found to associate with cardiovascular disease and mortality in RA patients.[31] In contrast to the current work, others showed akin results on comparing seronegative and seropositive RA regarding co-morbidities.[19] The traditional cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors were significantly associated with single positive RA, in which BMI, LDL (low-density lipoprotein), cholesterol and triglycerides were significantly higher in DPRA patients.

However, surprisingly CVD occurred in 14.5% of double negative RA which was significantly higher compared to other groups. In contrast, no significant difference was found on comparing seropositive and seronegative RA regarding the 10-year CVD risk.[18] It has been proposed that the autoantibodies might contribute to CVD burden; in which anti-CCP antibodies have been associated with long-term mortality and worse CVD outcomes in non-RA patients.[32] However, the heightened inflammatory state could accelerate the process of atherosclerosis and subsequent CVDs.[33] The traditional CVD risk factors account only for 50% of total CVD risk in RA patients;[34] implying the strong interplay between inflammation, atherogenesis and CVDs.

As already stated before, RFs are detectable in non-rheumatic conditions as well. The frequency of RF positive individuals in infectious diseases depend on whether it is a primary or secondary infection. In the current work, HCV infection was significantly more frequent in single positive RF patients. In line, 50%–70% of patients with HCV infection have positive RF antibodies, while anti-CCP was not observed; limiting the diagnostic utility of RF in HCV-related arthropathy.[35] The estimated prevalence for HCV globally is 3%;[36] however, exceptionally in Egypt, it is estimated to be 10%–15%.[37] Lymphotropism which is a prominent feature of HCV-infection is characterized by stimulation of the immune system resulting in autoantibodies production as RF and cryoglobulins.[38]

The significance of the current work is boosted by the fact that it is among few studies investigating the effect of concordant presence of both RF anti-CCP and its impact on disease phenotype. The autoantibodies have several pathogenic potentials through immune complex formation and their binding to Fc receptor on the macrophages which promotes subsequent tumor necrosis factor (TNF) production;[39] and through complement activation.[40] Additionally, anti-CCP antibodies stimulate production of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) which trigger a proinflammatory state through enhancing production of cytokines and adhesion molecules in RA.[41] Interestingly, immune-complex assays showed that adding RF IgM boosted the capacity of the anti-CCP to stimulate the macrophages resulting in increased cytokines production,[16] highlighting the integration of both autoantibodies in RA inflammatory status. In line, the presence of several autoantibodies has been associated with an augmented inflammatory response in RA.[42] It has been proposed that seronegative RA might require less aggressive treatment [43] and is not a mild disease phenotype.[10,19]

The cross-sectional study design is a limitation to find out a casual-relationship between the autoantibody status, disease characteristics and response to treatment. Liver function tests were significantly higher in patients with RF+/anti-CCP+ autoantibody status, which could be attributed to the greater use of methotrexate and leflunomide in DPRA. However, this is a leading large multicentre real-world study of Egyptian RA patients capable to detect small differences among different groups. Results need to be validated through larger scale longitudinal studies to prove causality. Additionally, different measures of disease activity as the clinical disease activity score were not explored; and no data have been collected regarding structural joint damage.

In conclusion, all the data together brought light on comparing different groups of RA patients based upon RF and anti-CCP autoantibody status. Patients with double seropositivity (RF+/ anti-CCP+) had more severe disease phenotype evidenced by the significantly increased markers of inflammation, increased frequency of arthritis, greater use of steroids and the more impairment in physical function. Current guidelines for initial therapy still do not promote to treat seropositive and seronegative RA differently. Considering tailored therapy for patients with both RF and anti-CCP may allow for better outcomes. However, in the current study CVD was significantly more frequent in DNRA in spite of the association of several traditional CVD risk factors with RF+/anti-CCP+, highlighting the considerable inflammatory and clinical burden of RF-/ anti-CCP-which might provide a better definition for this disease phenotype. This leaves an interesting area for further research, aiming to gain more knowledge.


Address for correspondence: *Nevin Hammam, MD PhD, Department of Rheumatology Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. E-mail:

Funding statement: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgement

Amira M. Ibrahim: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kafr El-Skeikh University, Egypt; Saad M Elzokm: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Damiette, Egypt; Amany El-Bahnasawy: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Dakahlia, Egypt; Amany R. El-Najjar: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Sharkia, Egypt; Maha E. Ibrahim and Gehad Elsehrawy: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez-Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt; Emad El-Shebini: Internal Medicine Department, Rheumatology Unit, Menoufia University, Egypt; Hanan M. Fathi and Soha Senara: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Egypt; Hanan Taha and Ahmed Y Ismail: Internal Medicine Department, Rheumatology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Egypt; Zahraa I. Selim: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assuit University, Egypt; Ahmed Elsaman: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Egypt; Wael Abdel Mohsen: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt; Rasha M. Fawzy: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Kalyoubia, Egypt; Ahmed M. Abdalla: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Aswan University, Egypt; Yousra H. Abdel-Fattah and Marwa A. Amer: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt; Nahla N. Eesa and Khaled El-Hadidi: Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt; Tahsin El-Hadidi: Rheumatology Department, Military Academy, Agouza Rheumatology Center, Giza, Egypt.

  1. Author Contributions: The author confirms responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.

  2. Informed Consent

    Patients provided informed consents to participate.

  3. Ethical Statement

    ECR-RA study was approved by the Scientific Research and Ethical Committee and in acco.

  4. Conflict of Interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  5. Data Availability Statement

    Data from the ECR-RA study used for this study analyses are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

[1] McInnes IB, Schett G. The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2205–2219.10.1056/NEJMra1004965Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Gheita TA, Raafat HA, El-Bakry SA, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis study of the Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR): nationwide presentation and worldwide stance. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43:667–676.10.1007/s00296-022-05258-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[3] Verpoort KN, Jol-van der Zijde CM, Papendrecht-van der Voort EA, et al. Isotype distribution of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in undifferentiated arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis reflects an ongoing immune response. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3799–3808.10.1002/art.22279Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Penny F Whiting, Nynke Smidt, Jonathan A C Sterne, et al. Systematic review: accuracy of anti-citrullinated Peptide antibodies for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:456–64; W155-W466.10.7326/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Jianhong Sun, Yuhui Zhang, Lei Liu, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of combined tests of anti cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:11–21.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/ European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:2569–2581.10.1002/art.27584Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Qingmei C, Yanfeng W, Yuanyuan J. Clinical significance of combined anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor assays in rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis. Arch Rheumatol. 2015;30:104–108.10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2015.4318Search in Google Scholar

[8] Zendman AJ, van Venrooij WJ, Pruijn GJ. Use and significance of anti-CCP autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45:20–25.10.1093/rheumatology/kei111Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Katchamart W, Koolvisoot A, Aromdee E, et al. Associations of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody with disease progression and treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35:1693–1699.10.1007/s00296-015-3271-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Nordberg LB, Lillegraven S, Lie E, et al. Patients with seronegative RA have more inflammatory activity compared with patients with seropositive RA in an inception cohort of DMARD-naïve patients classified according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:341–345.10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208873Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Geng Y, Zhou W, Zhang ZL. A comparative study on the diversity of clinical features between the sero-negative and sero-positive rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:3897–3901.10.1007/s00296-011-2329-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Bizzaro N, Mazzanti G, Tonutti E, Villalta D, Tozzoli R. Diagnostic accuracy of the anti-citrulline antibody assay for rheumatoid arthritis [published correction appears in Clin Chem 2001 Sep;47(9):1748]. Clin Chem. 2001;47:1089–1093.10.1093/clinchem/47.6.1089Search in Google Scholar

[13] Sobhy N, Ghoniem SA, Eissa BM, Kamal A, Medhat A, Elsaid NY. Disease characteristics in high versus low titers of rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated peptide antibody in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Egypt Rheumatol. 2022;44:325–328.10.1016/j.ejr.2022.04.004Search in Google Scholar

[14] Prevoo ML, van ’t Hof MA, Kuper HH, et al. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:44–48.10.1002/art.1780380107Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:20.10.1186/1477-7525-1-20Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Sokolove J, Johnson DS, Lahey LJ, et al. Rheumatoid factor as a potentiator of anti-citrullinated protein antibody-mediated inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66:813–821.10.1002/art.38307Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Valesini G, Gerardi MC, Iannuccelli C, Pacucci VA, Pendolino M, Shoenfeld Y. Citrullination and autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev. 2015;14:490–497.10.1016/j.autrev.2015.01.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Carbonell-Bobadilla N, Soto-Fajardo C, Amezcua-Guerra LM, et al. Patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis have a different phenotype than seropositive patients: A clinical and ultrasound study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:978351.10.3389/fmed.2022.978351Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] Saner C, Sonawale A, Mulkalwar A, Sonawale K, Keswani R. A Comparative Study of Patients with Seropositive and Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis. J Res Pract Musculoskelet Syst JRPMS. 2023;7.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Pope JE, Movahedi M, Rampakakis E, et al. ACPA and RF as predictors of sustained clinical remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Ontario Best practices Research Initiative (OBRI). RMD Open. 2018;4:e000738.10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000738Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[21] Jonsson T, Arinbjarnarson S, Thorsteinsson J, et al. Raised IgA rheumatoid factor (RF) but not IgM RF or IgG RF is associated with extra-articular manifestations in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:372–375.10.3109/03009749509095183Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Moura RA, Graca L, Fonseca JE. To B or not to B the conductor of rheumatoid arthritis orchestra. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2012;43:281–291.10.1007/s12016-012-8318-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Eldaly ZH, Saad SA, Hammam N. Ocular surface involvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Relation with disease activity and duration. Egypt Rheumatol. 2020;42:5–9.10.1016/j.ejr.2019.05.004Search in Google Scholar

[24] Eran Markovitz, Zvi Howard Perry, Erez Tsumi, et al. [Ocular involvement and its’ manifestations in rheumatoid arthritis patients]. Harefuah. 2011;150:713–718, 751.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Vignesh AP, Srinivasan R. Ocular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis and their correlation with anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:393–397.10.2147/OPTH.S77210Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] Kiliçarslan A, Yurdakul FG, Bodur H. Diagnosing fibromyalgia in rheumatoid arthritis: The importance of assessing disease activity. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;64:133–139.10.5606/tftrd.2018.1618Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[27] Oono M, Fujita Y, Uchida N, et al. Rheumatoid meningitis developed in patient with stable rheumatoid arthritis and myasthenia gravis-detailed analysis of intracranial inflammation using flow cytometry. J Neuroinflammation. 2018;15:151.10.1186/s12974-018-1196-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[28] van Delft MAM, Huizinga TWJ. An overview of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis. J Autoimmun. 2020;110:102392.10.1016/j.jaut.2019.102392Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Arenal-Cruz F, Jobson G, Villanueva E, Zhu J. AB0313 understanding disease prevalence and comorbidity profiles among seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis patients in puerto rico. 2023.10.1136/annrheumdis-2023-eular.594Search in Google Scholar

[30] Willemze A, Trouw LA, Toes RE, et al. The influence of ACPA status and characteristics on the course of RA. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;8:144–152.10.1038/nrrheum.2011.204Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Verheul MK, Fearon U, Trouw LA, et al. Biomarkers for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis. Clin Immunol. 2015;161:2–10.10.1016/j.clim.2015.04.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[32] Hermans MPJ, van der Velden D, Montero Cabezas JM, et al. Long-term mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is associated with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. Int J Cardiol. 2017;240:20–24.10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.04.046Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Nagornev V, Pigarevsky P. Cellular-molecular mechanisms of atherosclerosis development (Scientific legacy of academician RAMS VA Nagornev). Med Acad J. 2009;9:9–17.Search in Google Scholar

[34] Crowson CS, Rollefstad S, Ikdahl E, et al. Impact of risk factors associated with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48–54.10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211735Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[35] Wasley A, Alter MJ. Epidemiology of hepatitis C: geographic differences and temporal trends. Semin Liver Dis. 2000;20:1–16.10.1055/s-2000-9506Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Mohamed MK, Bakr I, El-Hoseiny M, et al. HCV-related morbidity in a rural community of Egypt. J Med Virol. 2006;78:1185–1189.10.1002/jmv.20679Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Wener MH, Hutchinson K, Morishima C, et al. Absence of antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptide in sera of patients with hepatitis C virus infection and cryoglobulinemia. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2305–2308.10.1002/art.20355Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Conca P, Tarantino G. Hepatitis C virus lymphotropism and peculiar immunological phenotype: effects on natural history and antiviral therapy. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:2305–2308.10.3748/wjg.15.2305Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[39] Laurent L, Clavel C, Lemaire O, et al. FCγ receptor profile of monocytes and macrophages from rheumatoid arthritis patients and their response to immune complexes formed with autoantibodies to citrullinated proteins. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1052–1059.10.1136/ard.2010.142091Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Trouw LA, Haisma EM, Levarht EW, et al. Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies from rheumatoid arthritis patients activate complement via both the classical and alternative pathways. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:1923–1931.10.1002/art.24622Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Ritika Khandpur, Carmelo Carmona-Rivera, Anuradha Vivekanandan-Giri, et al. NETs are a source of citrullinated autoantigens and stimulate inflammatory responses in rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:178ra40.10.1126/scitranslmed.3005580Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[42] Derksen VF, Ajeganova S, Trouw LA, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis phenotype at presentation differs depending on the number of autoantibodies present. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:716–720.10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209794Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] de Punder YM, Hendrikx J, den Broeder AA, et al. Should we redefine treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis? Low disease activity is sufficiently strict for patients who are anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative. J Rheumatol. 2013;40:1268–1274.10.3899/jrheum.121438Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2024-02-15
Accepted: 2023-11-20
Published Online: 2024-03-31

© 2024 Nevin Hammam, Passant N. El-Husseiny, Suzan S. Al-Adle, Nermeen Samy, Nora Y. Elsaid, Dina F. El-Essawi, Eman F. Mohamed, Samar M. Fawzy, Samah A. El Bakry, Maha Nassr, Samah I. Nasef, Hanan M. El-Saadany, Shereen Elwan, Nada M. Gamal, Abdelhfeez Moshrif, Osman Hammam, Rawhya R. El Shereef, Faten Ismail, Samar Tharwat, Doaa Mosad Mosa, Mervat I Abd Elazeem, Enas A. Abdelaleem, Tamer A. Gheita; on behalf of The Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR) Rheumatoid Arthritis (ECR-RA) Study Group, published by De Gruyter on behalf of NCRC-DID.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 17.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rir-2024-0007/html
Scroll to top button