Clinical and pathologic differences in interstitial lung disease based on antisynthetase antibody type.

BACKGROUND: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common extramuscular manifestation of the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Patients with antisynthetase antibodies (ASA) demonstrate some or all of the features of the antisynthetase syndrome including IIM and ILD. It has been hypothesized that the clinical expression of antisynthetase syndrome varies between specific ASAs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the myositis-associated ILD (MA-ILD) phenotype differs based on the presence of ASAs and by ASA subtype. METHODS: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of consecutive patients enrolled at the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center with ILD in the setting of clinically diagnosed autoimmune myositis was conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-seven subjects were included; 36 were ASA negative, 28 were anti-Jo1 positive, and 13 were non-Jo1 ASA positive (5 anti-PL-12, 4 anti-PL-7, 2 anti-EJ, and 2 anti-OJ). Non-Jo1 ASA positive participants were more likely to be African-American than Caucasian as compared to both the anti-Jo1 positive (p = 0.01) and ASA negative groups (p < 0.01). ASA negative participants had better mean forced vital capacity percent predicted (FVC%) and total computed tomography scores over time compared to those with anti-Jo1 after controlling for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: ASA status was significantly different by race. Those with anti-Jo1 antibodies had worse lung function and CT scores over time compared to those without detectable antisynthetase antibodies. Further prospective study in a larger cohort is needed to determine whether these apparent antibody-specific differences in demographics and manifestations of disease translate into meaningful disparities in clinical outcomes.

Attitudes of young adults to prenatal screening and genetic correction for human attributes and psychiatric conditions.

With recent advances in DNA technology, questions have arisen as to how this technology should be appropriately used. In this article, results obtained from a survey designed to elicit attitudes of college students to prenatal testing and gene therapy for human attributes and psychiatric conditions are reported. The eleven hypothetical disease phenotypes included schizophrenia, alcoholism, tendency toward violent behavior, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression requiring medical treatment, obesity, involvement in "dangerous" sports activities, homosexuality, borderline normal IQ (80-100), proportional short stature, and inability to detect perfect pitch. Most students supported prenatal genetic testing for psychiatric disorders and behavior that might result in harm to others (i.e., tendency towards violent behavior) and found prenatal genetic testing for human attributes less desirable. However, the lack of unilateral agreement or disagreement toward any one condition or attribute suggests the potential difficulties ahead in the quest for guidelines for the application of new technologies available to manipulate the human genome.