The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India · 2025
The Function of Platelet-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio in Assessing Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mehta Himanshu, Dhaon Pooja, Bohara Sangita, Tiwari Siddharth, Uraiya Dharmendra, Verma Ruchi
Аннотация
AIM: To ascertain the function of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as biomarkers in evaluation of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional research was performed in a hospital and included 381 patients who met the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA. The clinical disease activity assessment (CDAI) was used to evaluate activity of disease in addition to demographic and disease-related variables. Based on preestablished CDAI cutoff values, the participants were categorized into four groups. For each patient, laboratory analysis included the following: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and complete blood count (CBC). The conventional procedure was followed in the appropriate computation of PLR and NLR. The four patient groups' NLR and PLR values were compared, and the relation among disease activity indices and NLR and PLR was investigated using Pearson correlation analysis.
RESULTS: In patients, the mean PLR was 132.8 ± 127.7 and the mean NLR was 3.66 ± 2.6. Patients with low disease activity had a substantially lower mean PLR (p = 0.021) in comparison to those with higher disease activity. The mean NLR in relation to CDAI was not observed to be statistically significant (p = 0.69) across the four groups. While there was a weak positive association between PLR and the physician visual analog scale (VAS) (r = 0.22), patient VAS (r = 0.12), and CDAI (r = 0.17), there was no correlation among CDAI and specific disease indices with NLR, according to Pearson correlation analysis.
CONCLUSION: PLR, but not NLR, may be an effective biomarker for evaluating the disease activity level in RA patients, particularly higher disease activity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional research was performed in a hospital and included 381 patients who met the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA. The clinical disease activity assessment (CDAI) was used to evaluate activity of disease in addition to demographic and disease-related variables. Based on preestablished CDAI cutoff values, the participants were categorized into four groups. For each patient, laboratory analysis included the following: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and complete blood count (CBC). The conventional procedure was followed in the appropriate computation of PLR and NLR. The four patient groups' NLR and PLR values were compared, and the relation among disease activity indices and NLR and PLR was investigated using Pearson correlation analysis.
RESULTS: In patients, the mean PLR was 132.8 ± 127.7 and the mean NLR was 3.66 ± 2.6. Patients with low disease activity had a substantially lower mean PLR (p = 0.021) in comparison to those with higher disease activity. The mean NLR in relation to CDAI was not observed to be statistically significant (p = 0.69) across the four groups. While there was a weak positive association between PLR and the physician visual analog scale (VAS) (r = 0.22), patient VAS (r = 0.12), and CDAI (r = 0.17), there was no correlation among CDAI and specific disease indices with NLR, according to Pearson correlation analysis.
CONCLUSION: PLR, but not NLR, may be an effective biomarker for evaluating the disease activity level in RA patients, particularly higher disease activity.