4.6 Article

Aquaporin-4 antibody titration in NMO patients treated with rituximab A retrospective study

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000317

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla
  2. FISM [2014/PMS/1]
  3. Fondazione Ricerca Biomedica Onlus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We undertook an observational retrospective study to investigate the usefulness of aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibodies (Ab) titration in the management of patients with neuromyelitis optica (NMO) treated with rituximab (RTX) by studying (1) the correlation between AQP4-Ab titer and disease activity, (2) the influence of RTX on antibody levels, and (3) the association between AQP4-Ab levels and responsiveness to RTX. Methods: A cell-based assay was used for AQP4-Ab titration in 322 serum samples from 7 patients with NMO treated with RTX (median follow-up 65 months), according to a treatment-to-target approach. Serum samples were collected every month following standardized procedures. Results: (1) In group analysis, AQP4-Ab titers correlated with the disease activity, showing higher titers during and preceding relapses than during remission. However, in individual analysis, an increase in AQP4-Ab titers and CD191 B cells did not always precede a relapse. (2) A reduction of AQP4-Ab titers in the short-term and long-term period was observed during RTX treatment. (3) Reduction of AQP4-Ab titers was observed in responder patients both 3 months after RTX infusion and in the long-term follow-up. In one nonresponder patient, AQP4-Ab levels never decreased during the treatment period. Conclusions: Titration of AQP4-Abs could be useful in the clinical management of patients with NMO treated with RTX: titration before each reinfusion and 3 months after each reinfusion may provide information about responsiveness to RTX. Although a relationship among AQP4-Ab levels, disease activity, and response to RTX was observed, the usefulness of AQP4-Ab titration to predict relapses is limited.

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