4.7 Article

Disappearance of anti-MDA-5 autoantibodies in clinically amyopathic DM/interstitial lung disease during disease remission

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 800-804

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker408

关键词

amyopathic dermatomyositis; anti-MDA-5 antibody; interstitial lung disease; prognosis

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  2. 24th General Assembly of Japanese Association of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Autoantibodies against melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA-5) are one of the serological markers for DM. Anti-MDA-5 antibodies are especially associated with rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD) in amyopathic DM (ADM). It is known that the antibody status of anti-ENAs does not generally change significantly with disease course. For anti-MDA-5 antibodies, however, few longitudinal studies have investigated such changes. This study aimed to establish a quantitative assay for anti-MDA-5 antibodies towards assessing the long-term outcome of ADM patients who had anti-MDA-5 antibodies. Methods. We established ELISA for measuring anti-MDA-5 antibody levels using in vitro transcription and translation recombinant protein. The antibody levels were measured at different time points in 11 clinically ADM patients who tested positive for the anti-MDA-5 antibody on their first visit (range of follow-up 3 months to 16 years). Results. At the stage of clinical remission, six patients received no medication and the four others received low-dose CS. ELISA showed that anti-MDA-5 antibodies disappeared in nine of the patients and fell to just above the cut-off in one patient; in the patient who died, the antibodies remained. Conclusion. Our results suggest that anti-MDA-5 antibodies may be useful as a marker for monitoring disease activity in ILD complicated with ADM. Serial monitoring at short intervals is required to evaluate whether anti-MDA-5 antibody levels correlate with ADM disease activity.

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

4.7
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