Journal of neurology · 2022
Clinical pitfalls and serological diagnostics of MuSK myasthenia gravis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kwon Young Nam, Woodhall Mark, Sung Jung-Joon, Kim Kwang-Kuk, Lim Young-Min, Kim Hyunjin, Kim Jee-Eun, Baek Seol-Hee, Kim Byung-Jo, Park Jin-Sung, Seok Hung Youl, Kim Dae-Seong, Kwon Ohyun, Park Kee Hong, Sohn Eunhee, Bae Jong Seok, Yoon Byung-Nam, Kim Nam-Hee, Ahn Suk-Won, Choi Kyomin, Oh Jeeyoung, Park Hyung Jun, Shin Kyong Jin, Lee Sanggon, Park Jinseok, Kim Seung Hyun, Seok Jung Im, Bae Dae Woong, An Jae Young, Joo In Soo, Choi Seok-Jin, Nam Tai-Seung, Kim Sunyoung, Park Ki-Jong, Kwon Ki-Han, Waters Patrick, Hong Yoon-Ho
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for anti-muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibody (Ab) in a large cohort of anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) Ab-negative generalized myasthenia gravis (MG), and also to investigate clinical contexts for the diagnosis of MuSK MG.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 160 patients with a clinical suspicion of AChR Ab-negative generalized MG was performed. The serum samples were tested for anti-clustered AChR Ab by cell-based assay (CBA), anti-MuSK Ab by ELISA, CBA and/or radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA). Clinical data were compared between anti-MuSK Ab-positive MG and double seronegative (AChR and MuSK) MG groups.
RESULTS: After excluding non-MG and clustered AChR Ab-positive patients, we identified 89 patients as a cohort of AChR Ab-negative generalized MG. Anti-MuSK Ab was positive by ELISA in 22 (24.7%) patients. While CBA identified five additional anti-MuSK Ab-positive patients, the results of ELISA were mostly consistent with CBA and RIPA with Cohen's kappa of 0.80 and 0.90, respectively (p < 0.001). The most frequent differential diagnosis was motor neuron disease particularly of bulbar onset which showed remarkably overlapping clinical and electrophysiological features with MuSK MG at presentation.
CONCLUSION: While confirming the highest sensitivity of CBA for detecting anti-MuSK Ab, our results highlight the clinical pitfalls in making a diagnosis of MuSK MG and may support a diagnostic utility of MuSK-ELISA in clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 160 patients with a clinical suspicion of AChR Ab-negative generalized MG was performed. The serum samples were tested for anti-clustered AChR Ab by cell-based assay (CBA), anti-MuSK Ab by ELISA, CBA and/or radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA). Clinical data were compared between anti-MuSK Ab-positive MG and double seronegative (AChR and MuSK) MG groups.
RESULTS: After excluding non-MG and clustered AChR Ab-positive patients, we identified 89 patients as a cohort of AChR Ab-negative generalized MG. Anti-MuSK Ab was positive by ELISA in 22 (24.7%) patients. While CBA identified five additional anti-MuSK Ab-positive patients, the results of ELISA were mostly consistent with CBA and RIPA with Cohen's kappa of 0.80 and 0.90, respectively (p < 0.001). The most frequent differential diagnosis was motor neuron disease particularly of bulbar onset which showed remarkably overlapping clinical and electrophysiological features with MuSK MG at presentation.
CONCLUSION: While confirming the highest sensitivity of CBA for detecting anti-MuSK Ab, our results highlight the clinical pitfalls in making a diagnosis of MuSK MG and may support a diagnostic utility of MuSK-ELISA in clinical practice.