Interferon and interferon-induced cytokines as markers of impending clinical progression in ANA+ individuals without a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Elevated levels of interferons (IFNs) are a characteristic feature of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) and may be useful in predicting impending symptomatic progression in anti-nuclear antibody-positive (ANA+) individuals lacking a SARD diagnosis. Typically, these are measured by their effect on gene expression in the blood, which has limited their utility in clinical settings. Here, we assessed whether the measurement of serum IFN-α or selected IFN-induced cytokines accurately mirrors IFN-induced gene expression in ANA+ individuals and investigated their utility as biomarkers of clinical progression. METHODS: A total of 280 subjects were studied, including 50 ANA- healthy controls, 160 ANA+ individuals without a SARD diagnosis (96 asymptomatic, 64 with undifferentiated connective tissue disease), and 70 SARD patients. IFN-induced gene expression was measured by nanoString and cytokine levels by ELISA or Simoa. ANA+ individuals lacking a SARD diagnosis who had the new onset of SARD criteria over the subsequent 2 years were defined as progressors. RESULTS: Measurement of IFN-α levels by high-sensitivity ELISA or Simoa correlated much better with IFN-induced gene expression than measurement of CXCL-10 or Galectin-9 levels. Despite this, high CXCL-10 and Galectin-9 levels were better predictors of subsequent progression in ANA+ individuals than measures of IFN-α or IFN-induced gene expression with the optimal combination of predictive cytokines (CXCL-10 and IFN-α as measured by ELISA), resulting in a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSION: Easily performed ELISA assays for CXCL-10 and IFN-α can be used to predict ANA+ individuals at high risk of imminent symptomatic progression.

Efficacy and Use of Cloth Masks: A Scoping Review.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this setting, cloth masks may play an important role in limiting disease transmission; however, current literature on the use of cloth masks remains inconclusive. This review aims to integrate current studies and guidelines to determine the efficacy and use of cloth masks in healthcare settings and/or the community. Evidence-based suggestions on the most effective use of cloth masks during a pandemic are presented. Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were searched on March 31, 2020, and updated on April 6, 2020. Studies reporting on the efficacy, usability, and accessibility of cloth masks were included. Additionally, a search of guidelines and recommendations on cloth mask usage was conducted through published material by international and national public health agencies. Nine articles were included in this review after full-text screening. The clinical efficacy of a face mask is determined by the filtration efficacy of the material, fit of the mask, and compliance to wearing the mask. Household fabrics such as cotton T-shirts and towels have some filtration efficacy and therefore potential for droplet retention and protection against virus-containing particles. However, the percentage of penetration in cloth masks is higher than surgical masks or N95 respirators. Cloth masks have limited inward protection in healthcare settings where viral exposure is high but may be beneficial for outward protection in low-risk settings and use by the general public where no other alternatives to medical masks are available.