Document resource
Introduction Digestive involvement is frequent in systemic sclerosis (SSc) and contributes to reduced survival and impaired quality of life. It is often complicated by malnutrition, particularly in cases of malabsorption, which affects up to 25% of patients. Data on micronutrients in SSc remain scarce.The aim of this work is to describe micronutrient deficiencies in SSc, identify risk factors, and assess their distribution according to digestive involvement.Material and Methods A prospective study was conducted in 5 departments of a French hospital center. Included patients met the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Digestive involvement was assessed using the UCLA GIT 2 questionnaire.Results Among 140 included patients (77.14% women, mean age of 62 years), 52% were anti-centromere positive. A total of 89.39% had a deficiency in at least one micronutrient. The most frequent deficiencies concerned vitamin D (55.88%), zinc (50.72%), vitamin C (24.81%), and vitamin A (10.14%).Some deficiencies appear to be more frequent in severe forms of the disease. Anti-Scl70 positivity increased the risk of vitamin A deficiency (OR: 4.69). Pulmonary hypertension was associated with vitamin B9 (OR: 7.93) and selenium deficiencies (OR: 9.25). An modified Rodnan skin score (mRss) > 14 increased the risk of zinc deficiency (OR: 4.43). Conversely, anti-centromere positivity was associated with vitamin C deficiency (OR: 3.20), and calcinosis was associated with selenium deficiency (OR: 4.03).No association was found between deficiencies and self-reported digestive symptoms. The available data did not allow us to exclude some confounding factors, such as associated malnutrition or inadequate intake. Nevertheless, systematic screening for certain micronutrient deficiencies seems necessary.Conclusions Our preliminary study is among first to highlight a high prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in SSc patients, particularly for vitamins A, C, D, selenium, and zinc. While some risk factors seem to emerge, these results should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in larger cohorts.Abstract P.182 Table 1