4.4 Article

Soluble CD90 as a potential marker of pulmonary involvement in systemic sclerosis

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 281-287

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21799

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medisys Health Care
  2. Elsevier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Vascular injury and endothelial cell (EC) activation are pathogenic hallmarks of systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). Human CD90 is highly expressed on activated ECs and can be shed from the cell surface. This study was conducted to examine whether soluble CD90 (sCD90) is elevated in the sera of patients with SSc and linked to pulmonary involvement and in particular, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Methods sCD90 serum concentrations were assessed in 76 patients with SSc and related to clinical data, lung function, 6-minute walk distance, echocardiography, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and laboratory parameters. Thirty-one healthy volunteers and 29 patients with idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis (IRF) served as controls. Results sCD90 serum concentrations were elevated in patients with SSc compared to healthy volunteers (P = 0.001) and patients with IRF (P = 0.01). SSc patients with pulmonary fibrosis (P = 0.006) and patients with PAH (P < 0.001) had increased sCD90 serum concentrations compared to patients without the respective pulmonary manifestation of SSc. sCD90 levels correlated with diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (n = 65; r = 0.348, P = 0.005) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (n = 53; r = 0.469, P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve testing determined an optimal cutoff value of 626 ng/ml with a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 83% for PAH (area under the curve 0.773, 95% confidence interval 0.6480.898; P < 0.001). Conclusion sCD90 concentrations were increased in the sera of SSc patients, particularly in patients with vascular involvement of the lungs. These data suggest that sCD90 should be further evaluated as a marker for diagnosis of PAH in SSc.

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

4.4
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