| Literature DB >> 31195969 |
Jing Liu1,2, Qi Zhu3, Jing Han4, Hui Zhang1, Yuan Li1,2, Yanyun Ma5,2, Dongyi He3, Jianxin Gu4, Xiaodong Zhou6, John D Reveille6, Li Jin1,2, Hejian Zou7,8, Shifang Ren9, Jiucun Wang10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers have a high efficacy in treating Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), yet up to 40% of AS patients show poor or even no response to this treatment. In this paper, we aim to build an approach to predict the response prior to clinical treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis; Drug response prediction; IgG-gal ratio; MYOM2-rs2294066; TNF blocker
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31195969 PMCID: PMC6567531 DOI: 10.1186/s10020-019-0093-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Med ISSN: 1076-1551 Impact factor: 6.354
The detailed information of AS patients
| Parameter | Baseline (Mean ± SD, | Week 2 (Mean ± SD, | Week 4(Mean ± SD, | Week 8 (Mean ± SD, | Week 12 (Mean ± SD. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male n (%) | 70 (89) | ||||
| age | 36.0 ± 11.5 | ||||
| HLA-B27 (%) | 98.7 | ||||
| disease duration (months) | 7.3 ± 8.0 | ||||
| NSAIDS (%) | 82.3 | ||||
| Psoriasis (%) | 0 | ||||
| Rheumatoid Arthritis (%) | 0 | ||||
| Inflammatory Bowel Disease | 0 | ||||
| BASDAI | 5.4 ± 1.0 | 3.4 ± 1.5 | 2.2 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 1.0 | 1.4 ± 0.8 |
| BASFI | 3.2 ± 2.2 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | 1.4 ± 1.5 | 1.1 ± 1.2 | 0.9 ± 1.1 |
| CRP | 20.8 ± 32.2 | 3.8 ± 9.9 | 3.7 ± 10.0 | 3.1 ± 4.9 | 3.1 ± 4.2 |
| ESR | 28.3 ± 31.1 | 11.4 ± 19.7 | 8.4 ± 13.1 | 6.3 ± 6.8 | 6.5 ± 7.1 |
| ASDAS | 3.4 ± 0.8 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.7 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 1.1 ± 0.7 |
SD Standard deviation, BASDAI Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Di, BASFI Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Fu, ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP C reactive protein, ASDAS Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease NSADIS Non-steroidal anti-inflammator
Fig. 1a Difference of ΔBASDAI between responders and poor-responders. ΔBASDAI = (BASDAIweek0 – BASDAIweek12)/BASDAIweek0. b The difference of IgG-Gal ratio between responders and poor-responders before treatment. c IgG-Gal ratio variance of responders and poor-responders during treatment. d ΔIgG-Gal ratio variance of responders and poor-responders during treatment. The blank dots and black lines in C and D represent the mean value and standard error (se) interval respectively. e ROC curve of different indicators predicting patient response to etanercept. f Comparison between different models of patient response prediction. LG: logistic regression, RF: randomforest, SVM: support vector machine, NB: naviebayes, NN: neural network, LDA: linear discriminant analysis, MDA: mixture discriminant analysis, FDA: flexible discriminant analysis
Distribution of SNP (rs2294066) in MYOM2 between responders and poor-responders
| Genotype | CC (%) | CT (%) | TT (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responder | 52 (81.3) | 11 (17.2) | 1 (1.5) | 0.000576 |
| Poor-responder | 12 (42.9) | 15 (53.6) | 1 (3.5) | |
| Allele | C | T | P value | OR (95% CI) |
| Responder | 115 | 13 | 0.0011 | 3.82 (1.59–9.42) |
| Poor-responder | 39 | 17 |
Fig. 2Flowchart of the novel three-stage method in prediction of etanercept patient response. IgG-Gal ratio: IgG galactosylation ratio, ΔIgG-Gal ratio: The difference of IgG-Gal ratio between weeks 0 and 2