Fox R I, Saito I
Department of Rheumatology, Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, La Jolla, California.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1994 May;20(2):391-407.
The criteria for diagnosis of SS remain controversial, and several sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. On one hand, we have used a stringent set of criteria (termed the San Diego criteria) that requires evidence for an autoimmune process associated with destruction of salivary and lacrimal gland tissues. At the other extreme, several groups (including the Copenhagen and EEC Study group) have based their diagnostic criteria on clinical findings of dry eyes and mouth with no absolute requirement for gland biopsy or presence of autoantibodies. The EEC study group believe that the San Diego criteria identify only the tip of the iceberg--namely, those patients with full-blown disease--and ignore those patients with milder forms of SS. Until the underlying pathogenesis of SS is known, we suggest the continued use of the San Diego criteria for classification of SS, because it identifies a group of patients with serologic and histologic evidence for a systemic autoimmune process in association with their sicca symptoms. In patients lacking such evidence for an autoimmune process, we suggest the classification "sicca syndrome" or "dry mouth syndrome." This will allow the clinicians and clinical trials to focus on a more homogeneous group of SS patients who may share a common pathogenesis, treatment response, and prognosis. Also, patients lacking evidence of an autoimmune role in pathogenesis can be reassured, and other causes for their sicca symptoms can be investigated. Further, in the United States the particular diagnosis codes may have implications in obtaining insurance and other medical benefits. Thus, classification criteria involve not only future epidemiologic studies but also economic considerations for the individuals who are given a particular diagnostic code.
干燥综合征(SS)的诊断标准仍存在争议,目前已提出了几套诊断标准。一方面,我们采用了一套严格的标准(称为圣地亚哥标准),该标准要求有证据表明存在与唾液腺和泪腺组织破坏相关的自身免疫过程。而在另一个极端,有几个研究小组(包括哥本哈根和欧洲经济共同体研究小组)的诊断标准是基于干眼症和口干症的临床表现,并不绝对要求进行腺体活检或检测自身抗体。欧洲经济共同体研究小组认为,圣地亚哥标准只识别出了冰山一角——即那些患有典型疾病的患者——而忽略了那些症状较轻的SS患者。在SS的潜在发病机制尚未明确之前,我们建议继续使用圣地亚哥标准对SS进行分类,因为它识别出了一组患者,这些患者具有血清学和组织学证据,表明存在与口干眼干症状相关的系统性自身免疫过程。对于缺乏这种自身免疫过程证据的患者,我们建议分类为“干燥综合征”或“口干综合征”。这将使临床医生和临床试验能够专注于一组更具同质性的SS患者,他们可能具有共同的发病机制、治疗反应和预后。此外,缺乏发病机制中自身免疫作用证据的患者可以得到安慰,并可以对其口干眼干症状的其他原因进行调查。此外,在美国,特定的诊断代码可能会对获得保险和其他医疗福利产生影响。因此,分类标准不仅涉及未来的流行病学研究,还涉及被赋予特定诊断代码的个人的经济考虑因素。