MedElevator
Войти в исследования Biomedicines · 2023
Anti-Cytosolic 5'-Nucleotidase 1A in the Diagnosis of Patients with Suspected Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An Italian Real-Life, Single-Centre Retrospective Study.
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.
Porcelli Brunetta, d'Alessandro Miriana, Gupta Latika, Grazzini Silvia, Volpi Nila, Bacarelli Maria Romana, Ginanneschi Federica, Biasi Giovanni, Bellisai Francesca, Fabbroni Marta, Bennett David, Fabiani Claudia, Cantarini Luca, Bargagli Elena, Frediani Bruno, Conticini Edoardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Anti-cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A (anti-cN1A) antibodies were proposed as a biomarker for the diagnosis of inclusion body myositis (IBM), but conflicting specificity and sensitivity evidence limits its use. Our study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of anti-cN1A in a cohort of patients who underwent a myositis line immunoassay for suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). We also assessed the agreement between two testing procedures: line immunoassay (LIA) and enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected retrospective clinical and serological data for 340 patients who underwent a myositis antibody assay using LIA (EUROLINE Autoimmune Inflammatory Myopathies 16 Ag et cN-1A (IgG) line immunoassay) and verification with an anti-cN1A antibody assay using ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun Lubeck, Germany).
RESULTS: The serum samples of 20 (5.88%) patients (15 females, 5 males, mean age 58.76 ± 18.31) tested positive for anti-cN1A using LIA, but only two out of twenty were diagnosed with IBM. Seventeen out of twenty tested positive for anti-cN1A using ELISA (median IQR, 2.9 (1.9-4.18)).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests excellent concordance between LIA and ELISA for detecting anti-cN1A antibodies. LIA may be a rapid and useful adjunct, and it could even replace ELISA for cN1A assay. However, the high prevalence of diseases other than IBM in our cohort of anti-cN1A-positive patients did not allow us to consider anti-cN1A antibodies as a specific biomarker for IBM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected retrospective clinical and serological data for 340 patients who underwent a myositis antibody assay using LIA (EUROLINE Autoimmune Inflammatory Myopathies 16 Ag et cN-1A (IgG) line immunoassay) and verification with an anti-cN1A antibody assay using ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun Lubeck, Germany).
RESULTS: The serum samples of 20 (5.88%) patients (15 females, 5 males, mean age 58.76 ± 18.31) tested positive for anti-cN1A using LIA, but only two out of twenty were diagnosed with IBM. Seventeen out of twenty tested positive for anti-cN1A using ELISA (median IQR, 2.9 (1.9-4.18)).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests excellent concordance between LIA and ELISA for detecting anti-cN1A antibodies. LIA may be a rapid and useful adjunct, and it could even replace ELISA for cN1A assay. However, the high prevalence of diseases other than IBM in our cohort of anti-cN1A-positive patients did not allow us to consider anti-cN1A antibodies as a specific biomarker for IBM.