-
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Jul 2023Most observational population-based studies identify respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by nasal/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) only. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Most observational population-based studies identify respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by nasal/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) only. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to quantify specimen and diagnostic testing-based underascertainment of adult RSV infection.
METHODS
EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched (January 2000-December 2021) for studies including adults using/comparing >1 RSV testing approach. We quantified test performance and RSV detection increase associated with using multiple specimen types.
RESULTS
Among 8066 references identified, 154 met inclusion. Compared to RT-PCR, other methods were less sensitive: rapid antigen detection test (RADT; pooled sensitivity, 64%), direct fluorescent antibody (DFA; 83%), and viral culture (86%). Compared to singleplex PCR, multiplex PCR's sensitivity was lower (93%). Compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR alone, adding another specimen type increased detection: sputum RT-PCR, 52%; 4-fold rise in paired serology, 44%; and oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR, 28%. Sensitivity was lower in estimates limited to only adults (for RADT, DFA, and viral culture), and detection rate increases were largely comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
RT-PCR, particularly singleplex testing, is the most sensitive RSV diagnostic test in adults. Adding additional specimen types to nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing increased RSV detection. Synergistic effects of using ≥3 specimen types should be assessed, as this approach may improve the accuracy of adult RSV burden estimates.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Sensitivity and Specificity; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Nasopharynx; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
PubMed: 36661222
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad012 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022The diversity of three hypervariable loops in antibody heavy chain and light chain, termed the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs), defines antibody's binding...
The diversity of three hypervariable loops in antibody heavy chain and light chain, termed the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs), defines antibody's binding affinity and specificity owing to the direct contact between the CDRs and antigens. These CDR regions typically contain tyrosine (Tyr) residues that are known to engage in both nonpolar and pi stacking interaction with antigens through their complementary aromatic ring side chains. Nearly two decades ago, sulfotyrosine residue (sTyr), a negatively charged Tyr formed by Golgi-localized membrane-bound tyrosylprotein sulfotransferases during protein trafficking, were also found in the CDR regions and shown to play an important role in modulating antibody-antigen interaction. This breakthrough finding demonstrated that antibody repertoire could be further diversified through post-translational modifications, in addition to the conventional genetic recombination. This review article summarizes the current advances in the understanding of the Tyr-sulfation modification mechanism and its application in potentiating protein-protein interaction for antibody engineering and production. Challenges and opportunities are also discussed.
Topics: Complementarity Determining Regions; Immunoglobulin Heavy Chains; Antigens; Golgi Apparatus; Tyrosine
PubMed: 36569848
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1072702 -
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jan 2023The standard algorithm for diagnosing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has two steps, an HCV antibody test for screening and a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The standard algorithm for diagnosing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has two steps, an HCV antibody test for screening and a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for confirmation. However, the HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) detection assay is an alternative for one-step diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay to detect active hepatitis C in serum/plasma in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched until 20 September 2022 (PROSPERO, CRD42022348351). We included studies evaluating Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay (index assay) versus NAATs (reference test) in PLWHA coinfected with HCV who did not receive antiviral treatment for HCV. Meta-analysis was performed with the MIDAS module using Stata and random-effects models. The QUADAS-2 tool evaluated the risk of bias. The bivariate analysis was conducted on 11 studies with 2,407 samples. Pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92 to 0.97), specificity 0.97 (95% CI = 0.93 to 0.99), positive likelihood ratio 37.76 (95% CI = 12.84 to 111.02), and negative likelihood ratio 0.06 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.09). The area under the curve was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.20 to 1.00). For low prevalence (≤5%), the posttest probability that an individual with a positive test was a true positive ranged from 4% to 67%, whereas, at high prevalence (≥10%), the posttest probability was between 81% and 87%, indicating that a confirmatory test should be necessary, particularly with prevalence values of ≤1%. Regardless of prevalence, the probability that an individual with a negative test was a false negative was close to zero, indicating that the individual was not infected with HCV. In conclusion, the accuracy of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay was very good for HCV screening in serum/plasma samples from PLWHA. The clinical utility to confirm HCV infection was acceptable in high-prevalence settings (≥10%) but poor in low-prevalence settings (≤1%). Furthermore, it was excellent in excluding active HCV infection.
Topics: Humans; Hepacivirus; Sensitivity and Specificity; Hepatitis C; Mass Screening; Hepatitis C Antigens; HIV Infections
PubMed: 36537787
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01331-22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.
SEARCH METHODS
The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Antibodies, Viral; Immunoglobulin G; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Immunoglobulin M
PubMed: 36394900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022The present systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of diagnostic tests aim to describe the findings of literature over the last thirty years for the... (Review)
Review
The present systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of diagnostic tests aim to describe the findings of literature over the last thirty years for the diagnosis of Chagas disease (CD). This work aimed to determine the accuracy of diagnostic techniques for CD in the disease's acute and chronic phases. The PubMed database was searched for studies published between 1990 and 2021 on CD diagnostics. Fifty-six published studies that met the criteria were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, evaluating diagnostic accuracy through sensitivity and specificity. For Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Fluorescent Antibody Technique (IFAT), Hemagglutination Test (HmT), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) diagnosis methods, the sensitivity had a median of 99.0%, 78.0%, 75.0%, 76.0%, and 94.0%, respectively; while specificity presented a median of 99.0%, 99.0%, 99.0%, 98.0%, and 98.0%, respectively. This meta-analysis showed that ELISA and qPCR techniques had a higher performance compared to other methods of diagnosing CD in the chronic and acute phases, respectively. It was concluded utilizing the Area Under the Curve restricted to the false positive rates (AUC), that the ELISA diagnostic test presents the highest performance in diagnosing acute and chronic CD, compared to serological and molecular tests. Future studies focusing on new CD diagnostics approaches should be targeted.
PubMed: 36359595
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112752 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to...
BACKGROUND
Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care.
DESIGN
(1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives.
DATA SOURCES
For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used.
REVIEW METHODS
For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed.
RESULTS
People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents ( = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research.
LIMITATIONS
The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet.
CONCLUSIONS
Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia).
FUTURE WORK
Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: United States; Adult; Child; Male; Humans; Female; Celiac Disease; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms; Immunoglobulin A; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36321689
DOI: 10.3310/ZUCE8371 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Nov 2022The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and unify their diagnostic accuracy and the threshold selection of serum and synovial routine tests for PJI at an early stage.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for retrospective or prospective studies which reported preoperative-available assays (serum, synovial, or culture tests) for the diagnosis of chronic PJI among inflammatory arthritis (IA) or non-IA populations from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022. Threshold effective analysis was performed on synovial polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN%), synovial white blood cell (WBC), serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) to find the relevant cut-offs.
RESULTS
Two hundred and sixteen studies and information from 45,316 individuals were included in the final analysis. Synovial laboratory-based α-defensin and calprotectin had the best comprehensive sensitivity (0.91 [0.86-0.94], 0.95 [0.88-0.98]) and specificity (0.96 [0.94-0.97], 0.95 [0.89-0.98]) values. According to the threshold effect analysis, the recommended cut-offs are 70% (sensitivity 0.89 [0.85-0.92], specificity 0.90 [0.87-0.93]), 4100/μL (sensitivity 0.90 [0.87-0.93], specificity 0.97 [0.93-0.98]), 13.5 mg/L (sensitivity 0.84 [0.78-0.89], specificity 0.83 [0.73-0.89]), and 30 mm/h (sensitivity 0.79 [0.74-0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.72-0.83]) for synovial PMN%, synovial WBC, serum CRP, and ESR, respectively, and tests seem to be more reliable among non-IA patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The laboratory-based synovial α-defensin and synovial calprotectin are the two best independent preoperative diagnostic tests for PJI. A cut off of 70% for synovial PMN% and tighter cut-offs for synovial WBC and serum CRP could have a better diagnostic accuracy for non-IA patients with chronic PJI.
Topics: Humans; alpha-Defensins; Arthritis, Infectious; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; C-Reactive Protein; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Retrospective Studies; Synovial Fluid
PubMed: 36181336
DOI: 10.1111/os.13500 -
Rheumatology International Mar 2023Relapse in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Utility of ANCA for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Relapse in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Utility of ANCA for prediction of relapses is still controversial. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and WebOfScience were searched, screened and confirmed for inclusion [PROSPERO No: CRD42020220308]. Studies measuring serial ANCA by ELISA or indirect immunofluorescence (IF), reporting relapses with sufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity were included. Diagnostic odds ratio (OR), sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) were synthesized using a bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Sub-group analysis included a comparison between ELISA and IIF, anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO) and -proteinase 3(PR3), and type of rise in ANCA. For meta-analysis of survival outcomes, hazard ratios were synthesized using a random-effect model. QUADAS-2 was used for assessing quality of studies, I statistic for heterogeneity Begg's test for publication bias. 2946 abstracts and 43 full-texts were reviewed to identify 26 eligible studies that included 2623 patients with AAV and 848 relapses. Overall heterogeneity was high [I = 99%] and the overall risk of bias was low to moderate. ANCA positivity by either ELISA or immunofluorescence for predicting relapse of AAV had a sensitivity of 0.70(95% CI 0.58-0.81), specificity of 0.66(0.55-0.76), positive LR of 2.1(1.6-42.7) and negative LR of 0.44(0.30-0.60). ELISA performed marginally better [OR: 5(3-7)] than IIF [OR: 4(2-9)] with similar sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR. The area under the curve for PR3 was 0.74(0.7-0.77), while that for MPO was not computed as the number of eligible studies was only three. In the survival analysis, the hazard ratio for relapse was 3.11(1.7-5.65). The meta-analysis shows modest accuracy of ANCA in predicting relapses of ANCA vasculitis and supports the use of serial ANCA monitoring as a biomarker for relapse.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Myeloblastin; Biomarkers; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Recurrence; Peroxidase
PubMed: 36040492
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-022-05192-3 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2022Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder caused by specific autoantibodies at the neuromuscular junction. MG is classified by the antigen specificity of... (Review)
Review
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder caused by specific autoantibodies at the neuromuscular junction. MG is classified by the antigen specificity of these antibodies. Acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies are the most common type (74-88%), followed by anti-muscle specific kinase (MuSK) and other antibodies. While all these antibodies lead to neuromuscular transmission failure, the immuno-pathogenic mechanisms are distinct. Complement activation is a primary driver of AChR antibody-positive MG (AChR+ MG) pathogenesis. This leads to the formation of the membrane attack complex and destruction of AChR receptors and the postsynaptic membrane resulting in impaired neurotransmission and muscle weakness characteristic of MG. Broad-based immune-suppressants like corticosteroids are effective in controlling MG; however, their long-term use can be associated with significant adverse effects. Advances in translational research have led to the development of more directed therapeutic agents that are likely to alter the future of MG treatment. Eculizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits the cleavage of complement protein C5 and is approved for use in generalized MG. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of MG; the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of eculizumab, as well as the practical guidelines for its use in MG; future studies exploring the role of eculizumab in different stages and subtypes of MG subtypes; the optimal duration of therapy and its discontinuation; the characterization of non-responder patients; and the use of biomarkers for monitoring therapy are highlighted. Based on the pathophysiologic mechanisms, emerging therapies and new therapeutic targets are also reviewed.
PubMed: 35855752
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S266031 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Sep 2022As a chronic systemic autoimmune disease of undetermined etiology, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a complex pathogenesis, which involves multiple proteins and cytokines.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
As a chronic systemic autoimmune disease of undetermined etiology, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a complex pathogenesis, which involves multiple proteins and cytokines. The 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria facilitate early diagnosis of RA with reduced specificity when compared to the 1987 ACR criteria. Hence, it is imperative to identify novel serological inflammatory indicators and targets, in order to explain the complex regulatory network of RA. The present review discusses the associations of various inflammatory factors with RA and its underlying mechanism. Besides, the review also provides a novel insight into the clinical treatment of RA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to the PRISMA guidelines, databases like Web of Science, Google-Scholar, Pubmed and Scopus were systematically searched for articles from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2022 using The following 2 keywords: "rheumatoid arthritis", "Inflammatory cytokines", "ILs", "serum amyloid protein A", "matrix metalloproteinase 3", "RANKL", "Glucose-6-phosphoisomerase", "Anti-keratin antibody", "1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3".
RESULTS
Indicators like MMPs, ILs, glucose-6-phosphate isomerase (GPI), anti-keratin antibody (AKA) and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) are the current hotspots in the efficacy research of RA. The present review suggests that ILs are highly expressed in the serum and synovial tissues of RA patients. By targeted inhibition of ILs with inhibitor application, precise RA treatment can be achieved.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these results, it can be concluded that inflammatory factors have certain guiding significance in the diagnosis and efficacy evaluation of RA. However, the mechanisms of interactions among them are rather complex, which deserve further exploration.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Autoantibodies; Cytokines; Early Diagnosis; Humans
PubMed: 35838016
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24576