| 1. |
- Creary, Lisa E., et al.
(author)
-
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
- 2021
-
In: Frontiers in Immunology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-3224. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Meisel, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
Role of autoantibody levels as biomarkers in the management of patients with myasthenia gravis : A systematic review and expert appraisal
- 2023
-
In: European Journal of Neurology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1351-5101 .- 1468-1331. ; 30:1, s. 266-282
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and purpose Although myasthenia gravis (MG) is recognized as an immunoglobulin G autoantibody-mediated disease, the relationship between autoantibody levels and disease activity in MG is unclear. We sought to evaluate this landscape through systematically assessing the evidence, testing the impact of predefined variables on any relationship, and augmenting with expert opinion. Methods In October 2020, a forum of leading clinicians and researchers in neurology from across Europe (Expert Forum for Rare Autoantibodies in Neurology in Myasthenia Gravis) participated in a series of virtual meetings that took place alongside the conduct of a systematic literature review (SLR). Results Forty-two studies were identified meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 reported some correlation between a patient's autoantibody level and disease severity. Generally, decreased autoantibody levels (acetylcholine receptor, muscle-specific kinase, and titin) were positively and significantly correlated with improvements in disease severity (Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score, Myasthenia Gravis Composite score, Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living score, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America classification). Given the limited evidence, testing the impact of predefined variables was not feasible. Conclusions This first SLR to assess whether a correlation exists between autoantibody levels and disease activity in patients with MG has indicated a potential positive correlation, which could have clinical implications in guiding treatment decisions. However, in light of the limited and variable evidence, we cannot currently recommend routine clinical use of autoantibody level testing in this context. For now, patient's characteristics, clinical disease course, and laboratory data (e.g., autoantibody status, thymus histology) should inform management, alongside patient-reported outcomes. We highlight the need for future studies to reach more definitive conclusions on this relationship.
|
|
