Diagnostic Accuracy of Anti-CN1A on the Diagnosis of Inclusion Body Myositis. A Hierarchical Bivariate and Bayesian Meta-analysis.
Journal
Journal of clinical neuromuscular disease
ISSN: 1537-1611
Titre abrégé: J Clin Neuromuscul Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100887391
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
entrez:
25
8
2021
pubmed:
26
8
2021
medline:
18
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sporadic inclusion body myositis (IBM) is an acquired muscle disease and the most common idiopathic inflammatory myopathy over the age of 50. It is characterized by male predominance, with a prevalence rate between 1 and 71 cases per million, reaching 139 cases per million over the age of 50 globally. The diagnosis of IBM is based on clinical presentation and muscle biopsy findings. However, there is increasing evidence for the role of genetics and serum biomarkers in supporting a diagnosis. Antibodies against the cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A (Anti-CN1A), an enzyme catalyzing the conversion of adenosine monophosphate into adenosine and phosphate and is abundant in skeletal muscle, has been reported to be present in IBM and could be of crucial significance in the diagnosis of the disease. In this study, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of anti-CN1A antibodies for sporadic IBM in comparison with other inflammatory myopathies, autoimmune disorders, motor neurone disease, using a hierarchical bivariate approach, and a Bayesian model taking into account the variable prevalence. The results of the present analysis show that anti-CN1A antibodies have moderate sensitivity, and despite having high specificity, they are not useful biomarkers for the diagnosis of IBM, polymyositis or dermatomyositis, other autoimmune conditions, or neuromuscular disorders. Neither the hierarchical bivariate nor the Bayesian analysis showed any significant usefulness of anti-CN1A antibodies in the diagnosis of IBM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34431799
doi: 10.1097/CND.0000000000000353
pii: 00131402-202109000-00005
doi:
Substances chimiques
Autoantibodies
0
5'-Nucleotidase
EC 3.1.3.5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
31-38Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Phillips BA, Zilko PJ, Mastaglia FL. Prevalence of sporadic inclusion body myositis in Western Australia. Muscle Nerve. 2000;23:970–972.
Oflazer PS, Deymeer F, Parman Y. Sporadic-inclusion body myositis (s-IBM) is not so prevalent in Istanbul/Turkey: a muscle biopsy based survey. Acta Myol. 2011;30:34–36.
Badrising UA, Maat-Schieman M, van Duinen SG, et al. Epidemiology of inclusion body myositis in The Netherlands: a nationwide study. Neurology. 2000;55:1385–1387.
Wilson FC, Ytterberg SR, St Sauver JL, et al. Epidemiology of sporadic inclusion body myositis and polymyositis in Olmsted County, Minnesota. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:445–447.
Chahin N, Engel AG. Correlation of muscle biopsy, clinical course, and outcome in PM and sporadic IBM. Neurology. 2008;70:418–424.
Amato AA, Gronseth GS, Jackson CE, et al. Inclusion body myositis: clinical and pathological boundaries. Ann Neurol. 1996;40:581–586.
Barohn RJ, Amato AA. Inclusion body myositis. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2000;2:7–12.
Ioannis M, Foivos P, Dimitrios K. A review on the treatment of sporadic inclusion body myositis with Bimagrumab and Alemtuzumab. Int J Neurosci. 2019;129:297–302.
Lotz BP, Engel AG, Nishino H, et al. Inclusion body myositis. Observations in 40 patients. Brain. 1989;112:727–747.
Lindberg C, Persson LI, Björkander J, et al. Inclusion body myositis: clinical, morphological, physiological and laboratory findings in 18 cases. Acta Neurol Scand. 1994;89:123–131.
Beyenburg S, Zierz S, Jerusalem F. Inclusion body myositis: clinical and histopathological features of 36 patients. Clin Investig. 1993;71:351–361.
Sayers ME, Chou SM, Calabrese LH. Inclusion body myositis: analysis of 32 cases. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:1385–1389.
Greenberg SA. Inclusion body myositis. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2016;22:1871–1888.
Badrising UA, Maat-Schieman ML, van Houwelingen JC, et al. Inclusion body myositis. Clinical features and clinical course of the disease in 64 patients. J Neurol. 2005;252:1448–1454.
Nishino I, Carrillo-Carrasco N, Argov Z. GNE myopathy: current update and future therapy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;86:385–392.
Guinto JB, Ritson GP, Taylor JP, et al. Valosin-containing protein and the pathogenesis of frontotemporal dementia associated with inclusion body myopathy. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;114:55–61.
Amlani A, Choi MY, Tarnopolsky M, et al. Anti-NT5c1A autoantibodies as biomarkers in inclusion body myositis. Front Immunol. 2019;10:745.
Greenberg SA, Pinkus JL, Amato AA, et al. Association of inclusion body myositis with T cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia. Brain. 2016;139:1348–1360.
Rose MR; ENMC IBM Working Group. 188th ENMC International Workshop: inclusion body myositis, 2-4 December 2011, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord. 2013;23:1044–1055.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al.; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–536.
Available at: https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/mada , 2020.
Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, et al. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007;8:239–251. Erratum in: Biostatistics. 2008 Oct;9(4):779.
Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993;12:2273–2284.
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10:277–303.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–159.
Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1331–1332; author reply 1332–3.
Herbert MK, Stammen-Vogelzangs J, Verbeek MM, et al. Disease specificity of autoantibodies to cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A in sporadic inclusion body myositis versus known autoimmune diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:696–701.
Muro Y, Nakanishi H, Katsuno M, et al. Prevalence of anti-NT5C1A antibodies in Japanese patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases in comparison with other patient cohorts. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;472:1–4.
Lloyd TE, Christopher-Stine L, Pinal-Fernandez I, et al. Cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A as a target of circulating autoantibodies in autoimmune diseases. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68:66–71.
Pluk H, van Hoeve BJ, van Dooren SH, et al. Autoantibodies to cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A in inclusion body myositis. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:397–407.
Salajegheh M, Lam T, Greenberg SA. Autoantibodies against a 43 KDa muscle protein in inclusion body myositis. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20266.
Tawara N, Yamashita S, Zhang X, et al. Pathomechanisms of anti-cytosolic 5'-nucleotidase 1A autoantibodies in sporadic inclusion body myositis. Ann Neurol. 2017;81:512–525.
Goyal NA, Cash TM, Alam U, et al. Seropositivity for NT5c1A antibody in sporadic inclusion body myositis predicts more severe motor, bulbar and respiratory involvement. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87:373–378.
Benveniste O, Guiguet M, Freebody J, et al. Long-term observational study of sporadic inclusion body myositis. Brain. 2011;134:3176–3184.