ANCA Status or Clinical Phenotype — What Counts More?
Autor: | Andreas Kronbichler, Duvuru Geetha, Martin Windpessl, Erica L Bettac, Jae Il Shin, Philipp Gauckler |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2021 |
Předmět: |
Vasculitis
Vasculitis (C Dejaco and C Duftner Section Editors) Myeloblastin Microscopic Polyangiitis Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis Antibodies Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Serology Rheumatology Proteinase 3 Humans Medicine Peroxidase Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody ANCA business.industry Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis AAV medicine.disease Clinical trial Phenotype Immunology Biomarker (medicine) business Granulomatosis with polyangiitis Microscopic polyangiitis |
Zdroj: | Current Rheumatology Reports |
ISSN: | 1534-6307 1523-3774 |
Popis: | Purpose of Review There is ongoing debate concerning the classification of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. That is, whether classification should be based on the serotype (proteinase 3 (PR3)- or myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA) or on the clinical phenotype (granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA)). To add clarity, this review focused on integration of the most recent literature. Recent Findings Large clinical trials have provided evidence that a serology-based risk assessment for relapses is more predictive than distinction based on the phenotype. Research conducted in the past decade indicated that a serology-based approach more closely resembles the genetic associations, the clinical presentation (i.e., lung involvement), biomarker biology, treatment response, and is also predicting comorbidities (such as cardiovascular death). Summary Our review highlights that a serology-based approach could replace a phenotype-based approach to classify ANCA-associated vasculitides. In future, clinical trials and observational studies will presumably focus on this distinction and, as such, translate into a “personalized medicine.” |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |