4.5 Article

Metabolomic profiling predicts outcome of rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

RMD OPEN
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000289

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin [MG: 1K08AR064834]
  2. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)
  3. National Institutes of Health [NCI P30 CA54174]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether characterisation of patients' metabolic profiles, utilising nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mass spectrometry (MS), could predict response to rituximab therapy. 23 patients with active, seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on concomitant methotrexate were treated with rituximab. Patients were grouped into responders and nonresponders according to the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria, at a 20% level at 6 months. A Bruker Avance 700 MHz spectrometer and a Thermo Scientific Q Exactive Hybrid QuadrupoleOrbitrap mass spectrometer were used to acquire H-1-NMR and ultra high pressure liquid chromatography (UPLC)-MS/MS spectra, respectively, of serum samples before and after rituximab therapy. Data processing and statistical analysis were performed in MATLAB. 14 patients were characterised as responders, and 9 patients were considered nonresponders. 7 polar metabolites (phenylalanine, 2-hydroxyvalerate, succinate, choline, glycine, acetoacetate and tyrosine) and 15 lipid species were different between responders and non-responders at baseline. Phosphatidylethanolamines, phosphatidyserines and phosphatidylglycerols were downregulated in responders. An opposite trend was observed in phosphatidylinositols. At 6 months, 5 polar metabolites (succinate, taurine, lactate, pyruvate and aspartate) and 37 lipids were different between groups. The relationship between serum metabolic profiles and clinical response to rituximab suggests that H-1-NMR and UPLC-MS/MS may be promising tools for predicting response to rituximab.

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

4.5
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