# Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Distinct Immunopathological Entity with Erosive Potential

## TL;DR

Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis is a complex condition with potential for joint damage, requiring better classification and treatment approaches.

## Contribution

The paper highlights the need to integrate unconventional antibody markers (AMPA) for improved classification and prognosis of SNRA.

## Key findings

- SNRA patients can develop joint erosions similar to seropositive RA despite lacking RF and ACPA.
- Unconventional antibodies (AMPA) may be present in SNRA, suggesting hidden autoimmunity.
- Current diagnostic criteria may delay SNRA diagnosis, and treatment responses vary by therapy type.

## Abstract

Background: Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (SNRA), defined by the absence of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), represents 20–30% of rheumatoid arthritis cases. Once considered a milder phenotype, SNRA is now recognised as a heterogeneous entity in which a substantial subset of patients develops structural progression comparable to seropositive RA. The binary RF/ACPA-based definition is increasingly viewed as insufficient, as the broader anti-modified protein antibody (AMPA) family—including antibodies against carbamylated, acetylated and malondialdehyde–acetaldehyde–modified proteins—indicates that many “seronegative” patients may harbour unconventional humoral autoimmunity undetected by standard assays. Objectives: To synthesise contemporary insights into the epidemiology, immunopathology, diagnostic challenges and therapeutic management of SNRA, with emphasis on erosive versus non-erosive phenotypes and the implications of the AMPA paradigm. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar identified randomised trials, observational cohorts and systematic reviews, with focus on studies published within the past decade. Results: SNRA displays partially distinct immune features, including lower formation of tertiary lymphoid structures and variable activation of innate inflammatory circuits. However, the traditional adaptive–versus–innate dichotomy is overly reductionist. Growing evidence suggests that unconventional humoral responses directed against non-classical post-translational modifications may be present in a proportion of RF/ACPA-negative patients. Additional qualitative dimensions—such as IgA isotypes and fine-specificity profiles—represent further heterogeneity with potential prognostic significance. Although ACPA remains the strongest predictor of erosive progression, up to one-third of seronegative patients develop erosions within five years. The 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria may delay diagnosis in SNRA. Cytokine inhibitors and JAK inhibitors show largely serostatus-independent efficacy, whereas B-cell and T-cell–targeted therapies demonstrate attenuated responses in SNRA. Conclusions: SNRA is clinically and immunologically diverse. Integrating the AMPA framework is essential for refining classification and prognostication. Distinguishing erosive from non-erosive forms may guide treatment, while future work should prioritise biomarkers predicting progression and therapeutic response.