Dataset Information

Diagnostic value of anti-citrullinated α-enolase peptide 1 antibody in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To evaluate the diagnostic value of anti-citrullinated α-enolase peptide 1 (anti-CEP 1) antibody in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published until September 23, 2020. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used to calculate the diagnostic indices from primary data of eligible studies. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Twenty-four articles, with a total of 17 380 patients with RA and 7505 control participants, met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the anti-CEP 1 antibody were 44% (95% CI: 38%-51%), 97% (95% CI: 96%-98%), and 14.81 (95% CI: 10.66-20.57) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52-0.64), respectively. The pooled positive and negative predictive values were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97) and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.43-0.63), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86. Meta-regression indicated that the anti-CEP 1 antibody detection method may be a source of heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis of the group in which the anti-CEP 1 antibody was detected by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit had a sensitivity of 59% (95% CI: 50%-68%) and a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 85%-97%).

Conclusions

The anti-CEP 1 antibody had moderate RA diagnostic value with relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. An ELISA may increase the RA diagnostic sensitivity.

SUBMITTER: Li H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252446 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antibodies directed against citrullinated vimentin are members of the family of autoantibodies reactive with citrullinated proteins and are among the most specific serological markers for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was performed to test the diagnostic value of a newly developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of antibodies against a genetically modified citrullinated vimentin (anti-MCV) in comparison with a second-generation anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides (anti-CCP2) ELISA test system. Blinded sera from 631 patients (409 consecutive out-patients and 222 randomly selected stored sera) with RA (n = 164) and non-RA (osteoarthritis [n = 120], polymyalgia rheumatica/giant cell arteritis [n = 80], spondyloarthritis [n = 36], and other inflammatory rheumatic or non-inflammatory disease [n = 67]) were tested for the presence of anti-MCV and anti-CCP2 antibodies according to the manufacturers' instructions. The diagnostic performance of the anti-MCV was comparable with the anti-CCP2 assay for the diagnosis of RA according to the calculated area under the curve (0.824; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.778-0.870 versus 0.818; 95% CI 0.767-0.869) as analysed by receiving operating characteristic curve. When categorised with a cutoff value of 20.0 U/ml (as recommended by the manufacturer), sensitivity and specificity of the anti-MCV ELISA were 69.5% (95% CI 61.9%-76.5%) and 90.8% (86.9%-93.8%), respectively, compared with 70.1% (62.5%-77.0%) and 98.7% (96.7%-99.6%) of the anti-CCP2 assay. Using the cutoff values of 19.0 U/ml and 81.5 U/ml for the anti-MCV test to obtain a sensitivity and specificity identical to the anti-CCP2 assay, showed a reduced specificity (89.8%; 85.8%-92.9%) and sensitivity (53.7%; 45.7%-61.5%), respectively, of the anti-MCV ELISA compared with the anti-CCP2 test. In conclusion, the serum ELISA testing for anti-MCV antibodies as well as the anti-CCP-2 assay perform comparably well in the diagnosis of RA. In the high-specificity range, however, the anti-CCP2 assay appears to be superior to the anti-MCV test.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Because of its association with joint destruction, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered to be more severe than ACPA-negative RA. Clinically relevant joint destruction is now infrequent thanks to adequate disease suppression. According to patients, important outcomes are pain, fatigue, and independence. We evaluated whether ACPA-positive RA patients diagnosed during or after 2000 have more severe self-reported limitations and impairments, including restrictions at work, than ACPA-negative RA patients. METHODS:A total of 492 ACPA-positive and 450 ACPA-negative RA patients who fulfilled the 2010 criteria and were included in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort during or after 2000 were compared for self-reported pain, fatigue, disease activity, general well-being (measured by numerical rating scales), physical function (measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire), and work restrictions, including absenteeism at baseline and during the 4-year followup. Linear mixed models were used. RESULTS:At disease presentation, ACPA-negative patients had more severe pain, fatigue, self-reported disease activity scores, and functional disability (P < 0.05), although absolute differences were small. During followup, ACPA-negative patients remained somewhat more fatigued (P = 0.002), whereas other patient-reported impairments and limitations were similar. Thirty-eight percent of ACPA-negative and 48% of ACPA-positive patients reported absenteeism (P = 0.30), with median 4 days missed in both groups in the last 3 months. Also, restrictions at work among employed patients and restrictions with household work were not statistically different at baseline and during followup. CONCLUSION:In current rheumatology practice, ACPA-positive RA is not more severe than ACPA-negative RA in terms of patients' relevant outcomes, including physical functioning and restrictions at work. This implies that efforts to further improve the disease course should be proportional to both disease subsets.