4.6 Article

Soluble interleukin-2 receptor is a sensitive diagnostic test in adult HLH

期刊

BLOOD ADVANCES
卷 1, 期 26, 页码 2529-2534

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017012310

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hal Kettleson Hematology Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2r) is an important disease marker in hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), but there are no published data on its diagnostic value in adults. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of 78 consecutive adultswho had sIL-2rmeasured for suspected HLH. SerumsIL-2r levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (adult reference range, 241-846 U/mL). There were 38 patients with HLH and 40 with a non-HLH diagnosis (such as sepsis, liver disease, histiocyte disorders, autoimmune disease, leukemia, or lymphoma). The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that sIL-2r is a good to excellent diagnostic test for adult HLH, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.97) compared with AUC 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.88) for ferritin. The optimal threshold for sIL-2r was 2515 U/mL (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 72.5%). Although there was a large indeterminate range for sIL-2r, a level of 2400 U/mL or less was helpful for ruling out HLH (sensitivity, 100%), and more than 10 000 U/mL was helpful for ruling in HLH (specificity, 93%). Higher mean sIL-2r levels were seen in malignancy-associated HLH (20 241 U/mL) compared with infection-associated HLH and macrophage activation syndrome (9720 and 5008 U/mL, respectively; P,.05). Levels above 10 000 U/mL were not associated with worse prognosis in patients with HLH. Serum sIL-2r is a sensitive test for diagnosis of adult HLH, but is not as specific as previously reported in children. Additional studies enriched with patients without HLH who have conditions associated with T-cell activation, such as lymphoma and autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, are needed.

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