The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019
Molecular, endoscopic, histologic, and circulating biomarker-based diagnosis of eosinophilic gastritis: Multi-site study.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shoda Tetsuo, Wen Ting, Caldwell Julie M, Collins Margaret H, Besse John A, Osswald Garrett A, Abonia J Pablo, Arva Nicoleta C, Atkins Dan, Capocelli Kelley E, Dellon Evan S, Falk Gary W, Gonsalves Nirmala, Gupta Sandeep K, Hirano Ikuo, Mukkada Vincent A, Putnam Philip E, Sheridan Rachel M, Rudman Spergel Amanda K, Spergel Jonathan M, Wechsler Joshua B, Yang Guang-Yu, Aceves Seema S, Furuta Glenn T, Rothenberg Marc E, Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR)
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a clinicopathologic disorder with marked gastric eosinophilia and clinical symptoms. There is an unmet need among patients with EG for more precise diagnostic tools.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop tissue- and blood-based diagnostic platforms for EG.
METHODS: Patients with EG and control subjects without EG were enrolled across 9 Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers-associated sites. An EG Diagnostic Panel (EGDP; gastric transcript subset) and EG blood biomarker panel (protein multiplex array) were analyzed. EGDP18 scores were derived from the expression of 18 highly dysregulated genes, and blood EG scores were derived from dysregulated cytokine/chemokine levels.
RESULTS: Gastric biopsy specimens and blood samples from 185 subjects (patients with EG, n = 74; control subjects without EG, n = 111) were analyzed. The EGDP (1) identified patients with active EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.95), (2) effectively monitored disease activity in longitudinal samples (P = .0078), (3) highly correlated in same-patient samples (antrum vs body, r = 0.85, P < .0001), and (4) inversely correlated with gastric peak eosinophil levels (r = -0.83, P < .0001), periglandular circumferential collars (r = -0.73, P < .0001), and endoscopic nodularity (r = -0.45, P < .0001). For blood-based platforms, eotaxin-3, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, IL-5, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin levels were significantly increased. Blood EG scores (1) distinguished patients with EG from control subjects without EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.91), (2) correlated with gastric eosinophil levels (plasma: r = 0.72, P = .0002; serum: r = 0.54, P = .0015), and (3) inversely correlated with EGDP18 scores (plasma: r = -0.64, P = .0015; serum: r = -0.46, P = .0084). Plasma eotaxin-3 levels strongly associated with gastric CCL26 expression (r = 0.81, P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: We developed tissue- and blood-based platforms for assessment of EG and uncovered robust associations between specific gastric molecular profiles and histologic and endoscopic features, providing insight and clinical readiness tools for this emerging rare disease.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop tissue- and blood-based diagnostic platforms for EG.
METHODS: Patients with EG and control subjects without EG were enrolled across 9 Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers-associated sites. An EG Diagnostic Panel (EGDP; gastric transcript subset) and EG blood biomarker panel (protein multiplex array) were analyzed. EGDP18 scores were derived from the expression of 18 highly dysregulated genes, and blood EG scores were derived from dysregulated cytokine/chemokine levels.
RESULTS: Gastric biopsy specimens and blood samples from 185 subjects (patients with EG, n = 74; control subjects without EG, n = 111) were analyzed. The EGDP (1) identified patients with active EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.95), (2) effectively monitored disease activity in longitudinal samples (P = .0078), (3) highly correlated in same-patient samples (antrum vs body, r = 0.85, P < .0001), and (4) inversely correlated with gastric peak eosinophil levels (r = -0.83, P < .0001), periglandular circumferential collars (r = -0.73, P < .0001), and endoscopic nodularity (r = -0.45, P < .0001). For blood-based platforms, eotaxin-3, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, IL-5, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin levels were significantly increased. Blood EG scores (1) distinguished patients with EG from control subjects without EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.91), (2) correlated with gastric eosinophil levels (plasma: r = 0.72, P = .0002; serum: r = 0.54, P = .0015), and (3) inversely correlated with EGDP18 scores (plasma: r = -0.64, P = .0015; serum: r = -0.46, P = .0084). Plasma eotaxin-3 levels strongly associated with gastric CCL26 expression (r = 0.81, P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: We developed tissue- and blood-based platforms for assessment of EG and uncovered robust associations between specific gastric molecular profiles and histologic and endoscopic features, providing insight and clinical readiness tools for this emerging rare disease.