| Literature DB >> 33084768 |
Jianwen Ding1, Shujun Su2, Tao You3, Tingting Xia4, Xiaoying Lin3, Zhaocong Chen5, Liqun Zhang3.
Abstract
Interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays a crucial role in systemic autoimmunity and pathologic inflammation. Numerous studies have explored serum IL-6 levels in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their correlation with disease activity. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the correlation between the serum IL-6 levels and SLE activity. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were thoroughly searched for relevant studies up to September 2019. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to describe the differences between serum IL-6 levels in SLE patients and healthy controls and between those in active SLE patients and inactive SLE patients. The correlation between the serum IL-6 levels and disease activity was evaluated using Fisher's z values. A total of 24 studies involving 1817 SLE patients and 874 healthy controls were included in this meta-analysis. Serum IL-6 levels were significantly higher in SLE patients than in the healthy controls (pooled SMD: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.21-3.03, Active SLE patients had higher serum IL-6 levels than inactive SLE patients (pooled SMD: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.21-3.03). Furthermore, the pooled Fisher's z values (pooled Fisher's z=0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46, p<0.01) showed that there was a positive correlation between the serum IL-6 levels and SLE activity. This study suggested that serum IL-6 levels were higher in patients with SLE than in healthy controls, and they were positively correlated with disease activity when Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index>4 was defined as active SLE. More homogeneous studies with large sample sizes are warranted to confirm our findings due to several limitations in our meta-analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33084768 PMCID: PMC7536892 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1801
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Figure 1.Flow chart of the selection process for eligible studies.
Characteristics of eligible studies.
| Study | Country | SLE | Control | Detection methods | Definition of active SLE | NOS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | mean age (y) | female (%) | Sample size | Mean age (y) | Female (%) | |||||
| Active/Inactive | Active/Inactive | Active/Inactive | ||||||||
| AVRĂMESCU et al. (23) | Romania | 35 | >18 | 91.4 | 35 | Matched | Matched | ELISA | NA | 5 |
| Boehme et al. (24) | Germany | 30/56 | 34±6 | 86.7 | 20 | 34±9 | 70 | ELISA | SLAM≥11 | 6 |
| Cavalcanti et al. (25) | Brazil | 26/25 | 15 | 92 | 47 | 15 | 91 | CBA | SLEDAI-2K≥4 | 7 |
| Chun et al. (26) | Korea | 90/77 | 34.3±0.85 | 87.3 | 40 | 35.5±1.02 | 87.5 | ELISA | SLEDAI≥6 | 7 |
| Figueiredo-Braga et al. (27) | Portugal | 15 | 49±8.2 | 100 | 20 | 43.95±11.77 | 95 | ELISA | NA | 6 |
| Guo et al. (28) | China | 22 | 13.6 | 95 | 17 | 14.2 | 94 | ELISA | NA | 6 |
| Hu et al. (29) | China | 24/14 | 30.5±8.6 | 89.5 | 20 | 33.6±7.8 | 75 | ELISA | NA | 6 |
| Idborg et al. (30) | Sweden | 322/115 | 47.2 | 92 | 322 | 48.2 | 92 | NA | SLEDAI-2K>0 | 7 |
| Jolly et al. (31) | USA | 27/50 | 44.9±12.7 | 93.5 | NA | NA | NA | ELISA | SLEDAI≥4 | 6 |
| Koca et al. (32) | Turkey | 28 | 33.4±8.8 | 96.4 | 33 | 41.9±13.7 | 54.5 | ELISA | NA | 5 |
| Koca et al. (33) | Turkey | 20 | 35.8±10.9 | 100 | 23 | 39.5±9.2 | 100 | ELISA | SLEDAI≥6 | 5 |
| Mak et al. (34) | Singapore | 54 | 40.59±14.8 | 89 | 54 | 40.02±13.7 | 82 | Millipore | NA | 6 |
| Mellor-pita et al. (35) | Spain | 45 | 39.6±11.1 | 84.4 | 19 | 35±9.9 | 84.2 | ELISA | SLEDAI>4 | 6 |
| Monzavi et al. (36) | Iran | 41 | 31 | 100 | 41 | Matched | 100 | ELISA | NA | 6 |
| Peterson et al. (37) | USA | 56 | 38 | 93 | 32 | 35 | 91 | ELISA | NA | 5 |
| Raymond et al. (38) | Australia | 58/42 | 49 | 87 | 31 | 50 | 77 | ELISA | SLEDAI-2K>4 | 7 |
| Roba 2015 | Egypt | 32/28 | 28.58±7.30 | 93.3 | NA | NA | NA | ELISA | SLEDAI≥6 | 6 |
| Robak et al. (39) | Poland | 52/12 | 38 | 94 | 15 | 39 | 93 | ELISA | SLAM>10 | 6 |
| Shah et al. (40) | USA | 25 | 37.7±11.4 | 100 | 26 | Matched | Matched | BBP | NA | 6 |
| Tanaka et al. (42) | Japan | 22/13 | 41.1±12.1/43.2±13.6 | 90.9/92.3 | 13 | NA | NA | CBA | SLEDAI≥6 | 6 |
| Tang et al. (43) | China | 100/40 | 34.15±9.84/36.75±11.42 | 81/80 | 36 | 37.83±6.84 | 86.1 | ELISA | SLEDAI-2K>4 | 7 |
| Thanadetsuntorn et al. (44) | Thailand | 27/63 | 32.67±13.34/43.35±14.24 | 96.8/85.2 | NA | NA | NA | ELISA | Modified SLEDAI-2K>1 | 7 |
| Wan Asyraf et al. (45) | Malaysia | 12/31 | 30.5/34 | 97.7 | NA | NA | NA | ELISA | SLEDAI≥4 | 5 |
| Yang et al. (46) | China | 23/65 | 10.03±2.11 | 88.6 | 30 | 9.81±2.23 | 70 | ITA | SLEDAI>9 | 6 |
Abberviations: CBA: Cytometric Bead Array; Millipore: Miliplex Human Cytokine/Chemokine panel; BBP: Bio-Plex Pro human cytokine assay kit; ITA: Immunoturbidimetry; SLAM: the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure; SLEDAI: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index; SLEDAI-2K: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000; NA: not available; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Figure 2.Meta-analysis comparing the serum IL-6 levels in SLE patients and healthy controls.
Figure 3.Meta-analysis comparing the serum IL-6 levels in active SLE patients and inactive SLE patients.
Figure 4.Meta-analysis of the correlation between the serum IL-6 level and SLE activity.
Subgroup analyses for the pooled results of differences in serum IL-6 levels between SLE patients and healthy controls.
| Variables | No. of studies | Pooled SMD (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) |
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Adult | 10 | 2.257 (1.054-3.46) | <0.01 | 97.5 | <0.01 |
| Child | 3 | 1.861 (0.499-3.224) | <0.01 | 94.4 | <0.01 |
|
| |||||
| Non-Asia | 6 | 0.757 (0.24-1.275) | <0.01 | 81.7 | <0.01 |
| Asia | 7 | 3.508 (1.662-5.354) | <0.01 | 98.3 | <0.01 |
|
| |||||
| ELISA | 9 | 2.914 (1.37-4.458) | <0.01 | 88.6 | <0.01 |
| Other methods | 4 | 0.691 (0.181-1.201) | <0.01 | 37.5 | 0.2 |
Subgroup and meta-regression analyses of the pooled results of the correlation between serum IL-6 levels and SLE disease severity.
| Variables | No. of studies | Fisher’s z (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) |
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Adult | 12 | 0.349 (0.25-0.448) | <0.01 | 61 | <0.01 |
| Child | 1 | 0.522 (0.239-0.805) | <0.01 | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Non-Asia | 8 | 0.317 (0.221-0.412) | <0.01 | 41.1 | 0.1 |
| Asia | 5 | 0.452 (0.221-0.682) | <0.01 | 76.6 | <0.01 |
|
| |||||
| ELISA | 11 | 0.367 (0.251-0.483) | <0.01 | 61.9 | <0.01 |
| Other methods | 2 | 0.354 (0.102-0.606) | <0.01 | 67.4 | 0.08 |
|
| |||||
| SLEDAI-2K>4 | 2 | 0.298 (−0.115-0.711) | 0.16 | 82.6 | 0.02 |
| SLEDAI>4 | 3 | 0.31 (0.153-0.467) | <0.01 | 0 | 0.6 |
Figure 5.Sensitivity analysis for the pooled results of differences between the serum IL-6 levels in SLE patients and healthy controls (A); Sensitivity analysis for the pooled results of the differences between the serum IL-6 level in active SLE patients and inactive SLE patients (B); Sensitivity analysis for the pooled results of the correlation between the serum IL-6 level and SLE activity (C).
Figure 6.Funnel plot of the pooled results of differences between serum IL-6 levels in SLE patients and healthy controls (A); The adjusted funnel plot of the pooled results of differences between serum IL-6 levels in SLE patients and healthy controls (B); Funnel plot of the pooled results of the correlation between the serum IL-6 level and SLE activity (C); The adjusted funnel plot of the pooled results of the correlation between the serum IL-6 level and SLE activity (D).