4.7 Article

Expansion of CD4(+)CD8(+) double-positive T cells in rheumatoid arthritis patients is associated with erosive disease

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 1282-1287

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab551

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; T-cell subsets; flow cytometry; radiographic progression; erosion

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [WA 2765/5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expansion of CD4(+)CD8(+) double-positive (DP) T cells in a subset of RA patients is associated with age and erosive joint destruction, leading to more severe joint damage and frequent escalation of therapy. This suggests a potential contribution of DP T cells to the progression of more severe RA.
Objectives CD4(+)CD8(+) double-positive (DP) T cells are expanded in the peripheral blood of a subset of patients with RA. This study examines the clinical significance of DP T cells in RA. Methods In 70 RA patients, DP T cells were measured by flow cytometry. Clinical data were obtained, and hand and feet radiographs were scored according to the Sharp/van der Heijde (SvdH) method. The association between DP T cell frequency and erosive joint destruction was analysed by correlation and multiple logistic regression analysis. Results Nineteen RA patients (27.1%) displayed increased DP T cell frequencies, which correlated with age (r = 0.288, P =0.016). Expansion of DP T cells was associated with the occurrence of erosions (94,7% vs 43,1%, P <0.001), with a higher SvdH joint damage score (24.5 vs 6, P =0.008) and with more frequent use of biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs (68.4% vs 38%, P =0.02). In patients with non-erosive disease, DP T cell frequencies correlated with the joint space narrowing score (n = 28, r = 0.44, P =0.02). Logistic regression revealed DP T cells to be associated with erosive disease (OR 1.90, P <0.05). Conclusion Expansion of DP T cells is associated with joint damage and frequent escalation of therapy, possibly suggesting a contribution to more severe RA.

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