| Literature DB >> 24516598 |
Minoru Hasegawa1, Yoshihide Asano2, Hirahito Endo3, Manabu Fujimoto4, Daisuke Goto5, Hironobu Ihn6, Katsumi Inoue7, Osamu Ishikawa8, Yasushi Kawaguchi9, Masataka Kuwana10, Fumihide Ogawa11, Hiroki Takahashi12, Sumiaki Tanaka13, Shinichi Sato2, Kazuhiko Takehara14.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of circulating adhesion molecule levels as a prognostic indicator of disease progression in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with early onset disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24516598 PMCID: PMC3916412 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Serum adhesion molecule levels in healthy controls (CTL) and early systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with diffuse skin sclerosis and/or interstitial lung diseases.
The horizontal bar in each group indicates the median value.
The course of clinical and laboratory features in patients with SSc.
| Baseline | 1 year follow-up | 2 year follow-up | 3 year follow-up | 4 year follow-up | |
| MRSS | 16 (2–39) | 10 (0–38) | 12 (0–35) | 9 (1–25) | 8 (0–29) |
| And meto | 96 (53–143) | 91 (62–143) | 95 (61–143) | 91 (56–137) | 90 (58–136) |
| HAQ-DI | 0.125 (0–1.5) | 0.125 (0–1.75) | 0.25 (0–2.5) | 0.125 (0–1.875) | 0.25 (0–1.75) |
| ILD | 30 (77%) | 30 (77%) | 31 (79%) | 32 (82%) | 32 (82%) |
| Renal crisis | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) |
| Corticosteroid therapy | 26 (67%) | 32 (82%) | 33 (85%) | 34 (87%) | 32 (82%) |
| Cyclophosphamide therapy | 4 (10%) | 8 (21%) | 4 (10%) | 6 (15%) | 8 (21%) |
| Cyclosporin A therapy | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) | 2 (5%) | 4 (10%) | 4 (10%) |
| Azathioprine therapy | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) |
| Methotrexate therapy | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) |
Values are represented as median (range) or as number of positive cases with percentage within parentheses.
Figure 2Longitudinal change of serum adhesion molecule levels in each patient during the four years of the study.
The horizontal dotted line indicates the median value in healthy controls. The horizontal bar at each time point indicates the median value.
The associations between baseline adhesion molecule levels and subsequent clinical parameters in patients with SSc.
| Baseline | 1 yearfollow-up | 2 yearfollow-up | 3 yearfollow-up | 4 yearfollow-up | |
| Log10 (ICAM-1 (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. MRSS (baseline∼4 year) | r = -0.12 | r = −0.02 | r = −0.02 | r = −0.15 | r = −0.072 |
| p = 0.48 | p = 0.90 | p = 0.90 | p = 0.37 | p = 0.66 | |
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. %VC (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.41 | r = −0.40 | r = −0.41 | r = −0.57** | r = −0.59** |
| p = 0.019 | p = 0.033 | p = 0.036 | p = 0.0027 | p = 0.0009 | |
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. HAQ-DI (baseline∼4 year) | r = 0.065 | r = 0.027 | r = −0.14 | r = 0.11 | r = 0.060 |
| p = 0.69 | p = 0.87 | p = 0.39 | p = 0.49 | p = 0.72 | |
| Log10 (E-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. MRSS (baseline∼4 year) | r = 0.16 | r = 0.12 | r = 0.012 | r = 0.012 | r = 0.16 |
| p = 0.33 | p = 0.46 | p = 0.94 | p = 0.94 | p = 0.33 | |
| Log10 (E-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. MRSS (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.30 | r = −0.30 | r = −0.29 | r = −0.06 | r = −0.30 |
| p = 0.13 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.14 | p = 0.77 | p = 0.13 | |
| Log10 (E-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. HAQ-DI (baseline∼4 year) | r = 0.12 | r = 0.056 | r = 0.12 | r = 0.19 | r = 0.012 |
| p = 0.94 | p = 0.73 | p = 0.48 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.94 | |
| Log10 (L-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. MRSS (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.06 | r = −0.10 | r = −0.12 | r = −0.08 | r = −0.18 |
| p = 0.57 | p = 0.37 | p = 0.27 | p = 0.51 | p = 0.17 | |
| Log10 (L-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. %VC (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.051 | r = 0.049 | r = −0.052 | r = −0.16 | r = −0.26 |
| p = 0.68 | p = 0.76 | p = 0.71 | p = 0.32 | p = 0.13 | |
| Log10 (L-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. HAQ-DI (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.13 | r = −0.062 | r = −0.12 | r = −0.058 | r = −0.07 |
| p = 0.21 | p = 0.57 | p = 0.26 | p = 0.63 | p = 0.63 | |
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. MRSS (baseline∼4 year) | r = 0.14 | r = 0.30 | r = 0.13 | r = 0.079 | r = 0.23 |
| p = 0.39 | p = 0.060 | p = 0.43 | p = 0.63 | p = 0.15 | |
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. %VC (baseline∼4 year) | r = −0.16 | r = −0.20 | r = 0.022 | r = −0.13 | r = −0.077 |
| p = 0.37 | p = 0.47 | p = 0.91 | p = 0.53 | p = 0.70 | |
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) vs. HAQ-DI (baseline∼4 year) | r = 0.51** | r = 0.52** | r = 0.54** | r = 0.31 | r = 0.36 |
| p = 0.0010 | p = 0.0006 | p = 0.0004 | p = 0.058 | p = 0.026 |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
The associations between ICAM−1 levels and subsequent %VC in patients with SSc.
| %VC (baseline) | %VC (1 yearfollow-up) | %VC (2 yearfollow-up) | %VC (3 yearfollow-up) | %VC (4 yearfollow-up) | |
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml)) (baseline) | r = −0.41 | r = −0.40 | r = −0.41 | r = −0.57** | r = −0.59** |
| p = 0.019 | p = 0.033 | p = 0.036 | p = 0.0027 | p = 0.0009 | |
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml))(1 year follow-up) | r = −035 | r = −0.36 | r = −0.56** | r = −0.46** | |
| p = 0.080 | p = 0.079 | p = 0.0042 | p = 0.014 | ||
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml))(2 year follow-up) | r = −0.43 | r = −0.58** | r = −0.50** | ||
| p = 0.028 | p = 0.0022 | p = 0.0074 | |||
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml))(3 year follow-up) | r = −0.55** | r = −0.39 | |||
| p = 0.0048 | p = 0.040 | ||||
| Log10 (ICAM−1 (ng/ml))(4 year follow-up) | r = −0.30 | ||||
| p = 0.12 |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
The associations between P-selectin levels and subsequent HAQ-DI in patients with SSc.
| HAQ-DI (baseline) | HAQ-DI (1 year follow-up) | HAQ-DI (2 yearfollow-up) | HAQ-DI (3 year follow-up) | HAQ-DI (4 year follow-up) | |
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml)) (baseline) | r = 0.51** | r = 0.52** | r = 0.54** | r = 0.31 | r = 0.36 |
| p = 0.0010 | p = 0.0006 | p = 0.0004 | p = 0.058 | p = 0.026 | |
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml))(1 year follow-up) | r = −0.18 | r = −0.064 | r = 0.018 | r = −0.12 | |
| p = 0.29 | p = 0.70 | p = 0.91 | p = 0.49 | ||
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml))(2 year follow-up) | r = 0.015 | r = −0.074 | r = −0.25 | ||
| p = 0.92 | p = 0.66 | p = 0.12 | |||
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml))(3 year follow-up) | r = 0.25 | r = 0.017 | |||
| p = 0.12 | p = 0.92 | ||||
| Log10 (P-selectin (ng/ml))(4 year follow-up) | r = 0.018 | ||||
| p = 0.92 |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Factors predicting %VC of 4 year follow-up determined by multiple regression analysis.
| Estimate | Standard error | P value | |
| Intercept | 230.2 | 83.4 | 0.012 |
| %VC of baseline | 0.62 | 0.13 | 0.0001 |
| Log10 (serum ICAM-1 levels of baseline) ng/ml | −60.1 | 22.7 | 0.015 |
The multiple regression equations predicting %VC of 4 year follow-up are as follows; %VC of 4 year follow-up = 230.2+0.62×%VC of baseline+−60.1×log10 (serum ICAM-1 levels (ng/ml) of baseline). R2 (determination coefficient) = 0.73, root mean square error = 12.1, p<0.0001.
Factors predicting HAQ-DI of 4 year follow-up determined by multiple regression analysis.
| Estimate | Standard error | P value | |
| Intercept | −2.75 | 1.62 | 0.099 |
| Log10 (serum P-selectin levels of baseline) ng/ml | 2.22 | 0.96 | 0.028 |
| %VC of baseline | −0.0060 | 0.0030 | 0.057 |
| HAQ-DI of baseline | 0.29 | 0.17 | 0.100 |
The multiple regression equations predicting HAQ-DI of 4 year follow-up are as follows; HAQ-DI of 4 year follow-up = −2.75+2.22×log10(serum P-selectin levels (ng/ml) of baseline)+−0.0060×%VC of baseline +0.29×HAQ-DI of baseline. R2 (determination coefficient) = 0.41, root mean square error = 0.345, p = 0.001.