Clinical, histologic, and immunofluorescent distinctions between subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus and discoid lupus erythematosus

Abstract

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) was originally described and distinguished from discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) on the basis of clinical examination of the skin, but subsequent reports have questioned the concept of SCLE as a marker of a unique subset of LE patients. We classified 27 lupus patients, on the basis of cutaneous exam, as having discoid lupus skin lesions, subacute cutaneous skin lesions, or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) without DLE or SCLE lesions. Clinical features most characteristic of SCLE rather than DLE were superficial, non-indurated, non-scarring lesions, and photosensitivity, with lack of induration being the single most helpful finding. Histologic examination of lesional skin showed a relatively sparse, superficial infiltrate in SCLE and a denser, deeper infiltrate in DLE. A distinctive pattern of staining with direct immunofluorescence, particulate epidermal IgG deposition, was found in seven of seven SCLE patients (all anti-Ro/SSA positive) and none of the other patients. This distinctive pattern can be reproduced experimentally when anti-Ro/SSA autoantibodies are infused into human skin-grafted mice. Particulate dermal-epidermal junctional staining was the pattern seen in the patients who did not have SCLE. Clinically defining SCLE as a superficial inflammatory form of cutaneous lupus (i.e., considering lesions to be DLE if they are indurated) results in a meaningful segregation of SCLE and DLE patient groups. The epidermal IgG deposits unique to SCLE provide independent evidence that the clinical findings that were used to identify the patient groups actually identify distinctive cutaneous lupus subsets. The observation that antibodies are present in a different location in the skin in SCLE than in DLE indicates that SCLE and DLE are likely to have different pathomechanisms.