Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2023
Learned cautions regarding antibody testing in mast cell activation syndrome.
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.
Afrin Lawrence B, Dempsey Tania T, Molderings Gerhard J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns observed in antibody titer trendlines in patients with mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS, a prevalent but underrecognized chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder of great clinical heterogeneity) and offer clinical lessons learned from such pattern recognition.
METHODS: The available records of 104 MCAS patients drawn from the authors' practices were reviewed, including all antibody tests therein.
RESULTS: All patients had positive/elevated antibodies of various sorts at various points, but for most of the antibodies which were found to be positive at least some points, the diseases classically associated with those antibodies were not present, marking such antibodies as clinically insignificant mimickers (likely consequent to inflammatory effects of MCAS on the immune system itself driving spurious/random antibody production) rather than "on-target" and pathogenic antibodies reflecting true disease warranting treatment. We also observed two distinct patterns in trendlines of the titers of the mimickers vs. the trendline pattern expected in a true case of an antibody-associated disease (AAD).
CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest most positive antibody tests in MCAS patients represent detection of clinically insignificant mimicking antibodies. As such, to reduce incorrect diagnoses of AADs and inappropriate treatment in MCAS patients, caution is warranted in interpreting positive antibody tests in these patients. Except in clinically urgent/emergent situations, patience in determining the trendline of a positive antibody in an MCAS patient, and more carefully assessing whether the AAD is truly present, is to be preferred.
METHODS: The available records of 104 MCAS patients drawn from the authors' practices were reviewed, including all antibody tests therein.
RESULTS: All patients had positive/elevated antibodies of various sorts at various points, but for most of the antibodies which were found to be positive at least some points, the diseases classically associated with those antibodies were not present, marking such antibodies as clinically insignificant mimickers (likely consequent to inflammatory effects of MCAS on the immune system itself driving spurious/random antibody production) rather than "on-target" and pathogenic antibodies reflecting true disease warranting treatment. We also observed two distinct patterns in trendlines of the titers of the mimickers vs. the trendline pattern expected in a true case of an antibody-associated disease (AAD).
CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest most positive antibody tests in MCAS patients represent detection of clinically insignificant mimicking antibodies. As such, to reduce incorrect diagnoses of AADs and inappropriate treatment in MCAS patients, caution is warranted in interpreting positive antibody tests in these patients. Except in clinically urgent/emergent situations, patience in determining the trendline of a positive antibody in an MCAS patient, and more carefully assessing whether the AAD is truly present, is to be preferred.