4.2 Article

Discordant effect of IFN-β1a therapy on anti-IFN antibodies and thyroid disease development in patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERFERON AND CYTOKINE RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 7, 页码 773-781

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC PUBL
DOI: 10.1089/107999002320271369

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interferon-beta1b (IFN-beta1b) therapy is associated with a relatively high risk of developing thyroid disease. IFN-beta1a is regarded as less immunogenic than IFN-beta1b because of its structural homology to natural IFN-beta. We assessed the effect of 1 year of IFN-beta1a treatment on thyroid function and autoimmunity in 14 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. The results were compared with those obtained in a series of 31 MS patients treated with IFN-beta1b. The prevalence of positive binding antibody (BAb) titer and neutralizing (NAb) anti-IFN antibody titer in the two groups was also assessed. The BAb and NAb positivity rate in IFN-beta1a-treated patients was significantly lower than in the group submitted to IFN-beta1b therapy (7% vs. 84% and 0% vs. 30%, respectively). Although the incidence of thyroid dysfunction was slightly higher in IFN-beta1b-treated patients than in those undergoing IFN-beta1a treatment (33% vs. 23%, respectively), it did not reach statistical significance. Thyroid disease was unrelated to the presence of positive serum BAb or NAb titer in both the group undergoing IFN-beta1a therapy and in that treated with IFN-beta1b. In both groups, thyroid disease developed mostly in women (71%) against a background of preexisting thyroiditis and a diffuse hypoechoic ultrasound thyroid pattern (80%). IFN-beta1a treatment was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of both BAb and NAb-positive titers than was IFN-beta1b. Conversely, thyroid disease was similar and unrelated to the presence of positive anti-IFN-beta antibody titer. Therefore, routine thyroid assessment may be advised during IFN-beta1a treatment, especially in patients with preexisting thyroiditis.

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

4.2
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