Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct;149(10):1159–1165. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.4207

Table 3.

Prevalence of Autoantibodies and Antinuclear Antibodies Patterns Among Morphea Subtypes and Age-, Sex-, and Race-Matched Controlsa

Autoantibodies Patients, No. (%)
P Value (vs Controls)
Morphea Subtype
Total Group of Patients With Morphea (n = 187) Controlsb Total Group of Patients With Morphea Morphea Subtype
Generalized (n = 73) Linear (n = 85) Plaque (n = 18) Generalized Linear Plaque
Positive ANA 26 (36) 28 (33) 6 (33) 63 (34) 69 (11) <.001 NS NS NS

 Speckled 21 (29) 24 (28) 4 (24) 52 (28) 56 (9) <.001 NS NS NS

Positive

 Anti-ssDNA 3 (4) 11 (13)c 1 (6) 15 (8) 10 (7) NS NS NS NS

 AHA 5 (7) 15 (18)d 1 (6) 22 (12) 3 (2) <.001 NS .02e NS

Abbreviations: AHA, antihistone antibody; ANA, antinuclear antibody; anti-ssDNA, anti–single-stranded DNA; NS, nonsignificant.

a

Unless indicated, there were no other significant associations seen between autoantibodies and morphea subtypes.

b

For ANA, n = 651; for anti-ssDNA and antihistone, n = 149.

c

P = .06 for an association between anti-ssDNA and linear subtype (vs nonlinear subtypes).

d

P = .04 for an association between AHA and linear subtype (vs nonlinear subtypes).

e

Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons would yield an α level of .0167. Because .0170 is greater than .0167, this value becomes nonsignificant with correction.