| 1. |
- Albrecht, Inka, et al.
(author)
-
Development of autoantibodies against muscle-specific FHL1 in severe inflammatory myopathies
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Clinical Investigation. - : AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC. - 0021-9738 .- 1558-8238. ; 125:12, s. 4612-4624
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Mutations of the gene encoding four-and-a-half LIM domain 1 (FHL1) are the causative factor of several X-linked hereditary myopathies that are collectively termed FHL1-related myopathies. These disorders are characterized by severe muscle dysfunction and damage. Here, we have shown that patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) develop autoimmunity to FHL1, which is a muscle-specific protein. Anti-FHL1 autoantibodies were detected in 25% of IIM patients, while patients with other autoimmune diseases or muscular dystrophies were largely anti-FHL1 negative. Anti-FHL1 reactivity was predictive for muscle atrophy, dysphagia, pronounced muscle fiber damage, and vasculitis. FHL1 showed an altered expression pattern, with focal accumulation in the muscle fibers of autoantibody-positive patients compared with a homogeneous expression in anti-FHL1-negative patients and healthy controls. We determined that FHL1 is a target of the cytotoxic protease granzyme B, indicating that the generation of FHL1 fragments may initiate FHL1 autoimmunity. Moreover, immunization of myositis-prone mice with FHL1 aggravated muscle weakness and increased mortality, suggesting a direct link between anti-FHL1 responses and muscle damage. Together, our findings provide evidence that FHL1 may be involved in the pathogenesis not only of genetic FHL1-related myopathies but also of autoimmune IIM. Importantly, these results indicate that anti-FHL1 autoantibodies in peripheral blood have promising potential as a biomarker to identify a subset of severe IIM.
|
|
| 2. |
- Danaei, Goodarz, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of diabetes definition on global surveillance of diabetes prevalence and diagnosis: a pooled analysis of 96 population-based studies with 331288 participants
- 2015
-
In: The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. - 2213-8595 .- 2213-8587. ; 3:8, s. 624-637
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Diabetes has been defined on the basis of different biomarkers, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2hOGTT), and HbA(1c). We assessed the effect of different diagnostic definitions on both the population prevalence of diabetes and the classification of previously undiagnosed individuals as having diabetes versus not having diabetes in a pooled analysis of data from population-based health examination surveys in different regions. Methods We used data from 96 population-based health examination surveys that had measured at least two of the biomarkers used for defining diabetes. Diabetes was defined using HbA(1c) (HbA(1c) >= 6 . 5% or history of diabetes diagnosis or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs) compared with either FPG only or FPG-or-2hOGTT definitions (FPG >= 7 . 0 mmol/L or 2hOGTT >= 11 . 1 mmol/L or history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated diabetes prevalence, taking into account complex survey design and survey sample weights. We compared the prevalences of diabetes using different definitions graphically and by regression analyses. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of diabetes diagnosis based on HbA1c compared with diagnosis based on glucose among previously undiagnosed individuals (ie, excluding those with history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated sensitivity and specificity in each survey, and then pooled results using a random-effects model. We assessed the sources of heterogeneity of sensitivity by meta-regressions for study characteristics selected a priori. Findings Population prevalence of diabetes based on FPG- or-2hOGTT was correlated with prevalence based on FPG alone (r= 0 . 98), but was higher by 2-6 percentage points at different prevalence levels. Prevalence based on HbA(1c) was lower than prevalence based on FPG in 42 . 8% of age-sex-survey groups and higher in another 41 . 6%; in the other 15 . 6%, the two definitions provided similar prevalence estimates. The variation across studies in the relation between glucose-based and HbA(1c)-based prevalences was partly related to participants' age, followed by natural logarithm of per person gross domestic product, the year of survey, mean BMI, and whether the survey population was national, subnational, or from specific communities. Diabetes defined as HbA(1c) 6 . 5% or more had a pooled sensitivity of 52 . 8% (95% CI 51 . 3-54 . 3%) and a pooled specificity of 99 . 74% (99 . 71-99 . 78%) compared with FPG 7 . 0 mmol/L or more for diagnosing previously undiagnosed participants; sensitivity compared with diabetes defined based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was 30 . 5% (28 . 7-32 . 3%). None of the preselected study-level characteristics explained the heterogeneity in the sensitivity of HbA(1c) versus FPG. Interpretation Different biomarkers and definitions for diabetes can provide different estimates of population prevalence of diabetes, and differentially identify people without previous diagnosis as having diabetes. Using an HbA(1c)-based definition alone in health surveys will not identify a substantial proportion of previously undiagnosed people who would be considered as having diabetes using a glucose-based test.
|
|
