4.6 Article

Anti-cN1A Antibodies Are Associated with More Severe Dysphagia in Sporadic Inclusion Body Myositis

期刊

CELLS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10051146

关键词

inclusion body myositis; anti-cN1A antibodies; inflammatory myopathies; autoantibodies

资金

  1. Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study confirmed the low sensitivity and high specificity of anti-cN1A antibodies in s-IBM patients, with a high positive predictive value. The presence of anti-CN1A antibodies was identified as a marker for patients at greater risk of more severe swallowing problems.
In recent years, an autoantibody directed against the 5 '-citosolic nucleotidase1A (cN1A) was identified in the sera of sporadic inclusion body myositis (s-IBM) patients with widely variable sensitivity (33%-76%) and specificity (87%-100%). We assessed the sensitivity/specificity of anti-cN1A antibodies in an Italian cohort of s-IBM patients, searching for a potential correlation with clinical data. We collected clinical data and sera from 62 consecutive s-IBM patients and 62 other inflammatory myopathies patients. Testing for anti-cN1A antibodies was performed using a commercial ELISA. Anti-cN1A antibodies were detected in 23 s-IBM patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 37.1% with a specificity of 96.8%. Positive and negative predictive values were 92.0% and 60.6%, respectively. We did not find significant difference regarding demographic variables, nor quadriceps or finger flexor weakness. Nevertheless, we found that anti-cN1A-positive patients presented significantly lower scores in IBMFRS item 1 (swallowing, p = 0.045) and more frequently reported more severe swallowing problems, expressed as an IBMFRS item 1 score <= 2 (p < 0.001). We confirmed the low sensitivity and high specificity of anti-cN1A Ab in s-IBM patients with a high positive predictive value. The presence of anti-CN1A antibodies identified patients with a greater risk of more severe dysphagia.

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

4.6
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