Dataset Information

Next-Generation Sequencing Identifies Extended HLA Class I and II Haplotypes Associated With Early-Onset and Late-Onset Myasthenia Gravis in Italian, Norwegian, and Swedish Populations.

ABSTRACT: Genetic susceptibility to myasthenia gravis (MG) associates with specific HLA alleles and haplotypes at the class I and II regions in various populations. Previous studies have only examined alleles at a limited number of HLA loci that defined only broad serotypes or alleles defined at the protein sequence level. Consequently, genetic variants in noncoding and untranslated HLA gene segments have not been fully explored but could also be important determinants for MG. To gain further insight into the role of HLA in MG, we applied next-generation sequencing to analyze sequence variation at eleven HLA genes in early-onset (EO) and late-onset (LO) non-thymomatous MG patients positive for the acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies and ethnically matched controls from Italy, Norway, and Sweden. For all three populations, alleles and haplotype blocks present on the ancestral haplotype AH8.1 were associated with risk in AChR-EOMG patients. HLA-B*08:01:01:01 was the dominant risk allele in Italians (OR = 3.28, P = 1.83E-05), Norwegians (OR = 3.52, P = 4.41E-16), and in Swedes HLA-B*08:01 was the primary risk allele (OR = 4.24, P <2.2E-16). Protective alleles and haplotype blocks were identified on the HLA-DRB7, and HLA-DRB13.1 class II haplotypes in Italians and Norwegians, whereas in Swedes HLA-DRB7 exhibited the main protective effect. For AChR-LOMG patients, the HLA-DRB15.1 haplotype and associated alleles were significantly associated with susceptibility in all groups. The HLA-DR13-HLA-DR-HLA-DQ haplotype was associated with protection in all AChR-LOMG groups. This study has confirmed and extended previous findings that the immunogenetic predisposition profiles for EOMG and LOMG are distinct. In addition, the results are consistent with a role for non-coding HLA genetic variants in the pathogenesis of MG.

SUBMITTER: Creary LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUse of biologic agents in generalized myasthenia gravis is generally limited to therapy-refractory cases; benefit in new-onset disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess rituximab in refractory and new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis and rituximab vs conventional immunotherapy in new-onset disease.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data was conducted on a county-based community sample at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included 72 patients with myasthenia gravis, excluding those displaying muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies, initiating rituximab treatment from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, and patients with new-onset disease initiating conventional immunotherapy from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, with 12 months or more of observation time. The present study was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.ExposuresTreatment with low-dose rituximab (most often 500 mg every 6 months) or conventional immunosuppressants.Main outcomes and measuresTime to remission (main outcome) as well as use of rescue therapies or additional immunotherapies and time in remission (secondary outcomes).ResultsOf the 72 patients included, 31 patients (43%) were women; mean (SD) age at treatment start was 60 (18) years. Twenty-four patients had received rituximab within 12 months of disease onset and 48 received rituximab at a later time, 34 of whom had therapy-refractory disease. A total of 26 patients (3 [12%] women; mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years at treatment start) received conventional immunosuppressant therapy. Median time to remission was shorter for new-onset vs refractory disease (7 vs 16 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.26-5.07; P = .009 after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity) and for rituximab vs conventional immunosuppressant therapies (7 vs 11 months: HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.43-6.18; P = .004 after adjustment). In addition, fewer rescue therapy episodes during the first 24 months were required (mean [SD], 0.38 [1.10] vs 1.31 [1.59] times; mean difference, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.56; P < .001 after adjustment), and a larger proportion of patients had minimal or no need of additional immunotherapies (70% vs 35%; OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.40-21.43; P = .02 after adjustment). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with rituximab compared with conventional therapies (3% vs 46%; P < .001 after adjustment).Conclusions and relevanceClinical outcomes with rituximab appeared to be more favorable in new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis, and rituximab also appeared to perform better than conventional immunosuppressant therapy. These findings suggest a relatively greater benefit of rituximab earlier in the disease course. A placebo-controlled randomized trial to corroborate these findings is warranted.

Dataset Information

Next-Generation Sequencing Identifies Extended HLA Class I and II Haplotypes Associated With Early-Onset and Late-Onset Myasthenia Gravis in Italian, Norwegian, and Swedish Populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets