RESUMO
Introduction: After more than 20 years of sustained work, the Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL) has made a significant number of contributions to the field of lupus, not only in the differential role that race/ethnicity plays in its course and outcome but also in several other studies including the beneficial effects of using antimalarials in lupus patients and the development of consensus guidelines for the treatment of lupus in our region. Methods: A new generation of "Lupus Investigators" in more than 40 centers throughout Latin America has been constituted in order to continue the legacy of the investigators of the original cohort and to launch a novel study of serum and urinary biomarkers in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Results: So far, we have recruited 807 patients and 631 controls from 42 Latin-American centers including 339 patients with SLE without renal involvement, 202 patients with SLE with prevalent but inactive renal disease, 176 patients with prevalent and active renal disease and 90 patients with incident lupus nephritis. Conclusions: The different methodological aspects of the GLADEL 2.0 cohort are discussed in this manuscript, including the challenges and difficulties of conducting such an ambitious project.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the results obtained from different assays for the detection of anti-Mi-2 antibodies, which are important markers in the diagnosis of DM. METHODS: The study included 82 patients (68 females/14 males), most of whom had DM (n = 57), followed by PM (n = 16) and juvenile DM (n = 9). All samples were tested using a novel particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) (Inova Diagnostics, research use only) in parallel with a line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). To assess clinical specificity for the PMAT assay, a total of 775 disease and healthy controls were tested. RESULTS: 29 samples were positive by at least one test for anti-Mi-2 antibodies. Of those, 24 were Mi-2ß LIA+, five were Mi-2α LIA+ and 23 Mi-2 PMAT+. The comparison shows varying agreement between the different methods (kappa 0.27-0.77). When LIA results were used as reference for receiver operating characteristics analysis, high area under the curve values were found for both PMAT vs LIA Mi-2α and LIA Mi-2ß. When analysing the results in the context of the myositis phenotype, PMAT associated closest with the DM phenotype. In the control group, 3/775 controls (all low levels) were anti-Mi-2+ resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 28.1% and 99.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, good agreement was found between LIA and PMAT for anti-Mi-2 antibodies, which is important for the standardization of autoantibodies. Anti-Mi-2ß antibodies measured by PMAT tend be more highly associated with the clinical phenotype of DM.