Association of anti-pad4 antibodies with erosion and biological treatment use in rheumatoid arthritis.
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
2019
Start date of the public exhibition period
End date of the public exhibition period
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
https://ard.bmj.com/content/78/Suppl_2/315.1
Metrics
Share
Abstract
Background: Novel biomarkers have been described in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, including antibodies to carbamylated proteins (anti-CarP) and to protein-arginine deiminases (PAD). Anti-PAD4 antibodies are associated with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and worse baseline radiographic joint damage [1]. A subset of anti-PAD4 antibodies that cross-react with PAD3 and are associated with erosive disease, ACPA and progress despite treatment have also been described [1].
Objectives: To evaluate several novel RA markers in a cohort of RA and controls and their association with erosive disease and biological treatment use in RA.
Methods: Sera from 116 RA patients [63 young onset RA (YORA) and 53 elderly onset RA (EORA)] and 155 controls [134 polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) patients and 21 healthy individuals (HI) older than 60 years old] were included. Information on erosion status and biological treatment was available for 56 of the RA patients. The samples were tested for anti-PAD3 and anti-PAD4 IgG using the novel particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, research use only, RUO), as well as for ACPA [CCP3 IgG ELISA and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA)] and anti-CarP IgG (ELISA, RUO).
Results: Significantly higher levels of anti-PAD3, anti-PAD4 and ACPA (ELISA and CIA) but not CarP were observed in YORA vs. EORA (p<0.0001 for anti-PAD3 and ACPA ELISA and CIA, p=0.0016 for anti-PAD4). In the RA patients with erosion and treatment information available, anti-PAD4 antibody levels, but not ACPA, anti-CarP or anti-PAD3, were significantly higher in patients on biologic treatment vs. patients that were not on biologics (p=0.0017). Anti-PAD4 positive patients, were 10.1 [95% CI 2.5-52.0, p=0.0002] times more likely to be on biologic treatment vs. the negative group. Similarly, anti-PAD4 antibodies, but neither ACPA nor anti-CarP or anti-PAD3, were also significantly higher in patients with joint erosions (p=0.0354). All patients that were positive for anti-PAD4 antibodies (n=21) had erosive disease. Anti-PAD4 positive patients, were 20.2 [95% CI 1.1-363.2, p=0.0041] times more likely to have erosive disease.