4.5 Article

Mannose-Binding Lectin Gene Polymorphisms Are Associated with Disease Activity and Physical Disability in Untreated, Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide-Positive Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 731-735

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.080846

关键词

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; MANNOSE-BINDING LECTIN; POLYMORPHISM; AUTOANTIBODIES; PEPTIDES; CYCLIC CITRULLINATED PEPTIDE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To study the association between polymorphisms in the mannose-binding lectin gene (MBL2) and disease activity, physical disability, and joint erosions in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Patients with early RA (n = 158) not previously treated with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, participating in a treatment trial (CIMESTRA study) were examined at inclusion for MBL2 pooled. structural genotypes (O/O, A/O, A/A), regulatory MBL2 promoter polymorphism in position-221 (XX, XY, YY), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2 antibodies (anti-CCP2), disease activity by Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28 score), physical disability by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, and erosive changes in hands and feet (Sharp-van der Heijde score). Results. Eight patients were homozygous MBL2 defective (O/O), 101 belonged to an intermediate group, and 49 were MBL2 high producers (YA/YA). Anti-CCP was present in 93 patients (59%). High scores of disease activity, C-reactive protein-based DAS28 (p = 0.02), and physical disability by HAQ (p = 0.01) were associated with high MBL2 expression genotypes in a gene-dose dependent way, but only in anti-CCP-positive patients. At this early stage of the disease there was no association with erosion score from radiographs. Conclusion. The results point to a synovitis-enhancing effect of MBL in anti-CCP-positive RA, whereas such an effect was not demonstrated for joint erosions. (First Release March 1 2009; J Rheumatol 2009;36:731-5; doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080846)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据