Xiaoting Wen1, Ruihong Hou1, Ke Xu1, Yunxia Han1,2, Junping Hu1,2, Yan Zhang3, Yazhen Su1, Jinfang Gao1, Gailian Zhang1, Liyun Zhang1. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. 2. Department of Rheumatology, Shanxi Bethune Hospital Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. 3. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China.
Abstract
AIMS: Whether the circulating levels of pentraxin 3 (PTX3), an acute phase reactant (APR), are higher in active Takayasu arteritis (TAK), and if so, whether PTX3 is more accurate than C-reactive protein (CRP) in TAK activity assessment has been investigated in this study. STUDY DESIGN: Research works such as PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and two Chinese literature databases (CNKI and WanFang) were searched for studies conducted till August 30th, 2019. Two investigators searched the studies independently, who evaluated the quality of the study using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and extracted data. Pooled standard mean difference (SMD) and diagnostic indexes, with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Totally, 8 studies involving 473 TAK (208 active and 265 inactive TAK) patients and 252 healthy controls were eventually included in the meta-analysis. PTX3 level in the blood in active TAK patients were found to be higher than that in dormant TAK with pooled SMD of 0.761 (95% CI = 0.38-1.14, p<0.0001; I2 = 68%, p of Q test = 0.003). And there was no publication bias. Among the 8 studies, 5 studies identified active TAK with both PTX3 and CRP. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of PTX3 in active TAK diagnosis were higher than those of CRP (0.78 [95% CI = 0.65-0.87] vs. 0.66 [95% CI = 0.53-0.77], p = 0.012; 0.85 [95% CI = 0.77-0.90] vs. 0.77 [95% CI = 0.56-0.90], p = 0.033; 0.88 [95% CI = 0.85-0.90] vs. 0.75 [95% CI = 0.71-0.79], p < 0.0001). It showed potential publication bias using Egger's test (p of PTX3 = 0.031 and p of CRP = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: PTX3 might be better than CRP in the assessment of TAK activity. Yet, it should be cautious before clinical use for moderate heterogeneity and potential publication bias of the meta-analysis.
AIMS: Whether the circulating levels of pentraxin 3 (PTX3), an acute phase reactant (APR), are higher in active Takayasu arteritis (TAK), and if so, whether PTX3 is more accurate than C-reactive protein (CRP) in TAK activity assessment has been investigated in this study. STUDY DESIGN: Research works such as PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and two Chinese literature databases (CNKI and WanFang) were searched for studies conducted till August 30th, 2019. Two investigators searched the studies independently, who evaluated the quality of the study using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and extracted data. Pooled standard mean difference (SMD) and diagnostic indexes, with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Totally, 8 studies involving 473 TAK (208 active and 265 inactive TAK) patients and 252 healthy controls were eventually included in the meta-analysis. PTX3 level in the blood in active TAK patients were found to be higher than that in dormant TAK with pooled SMD of 0.761 (95% CI = 0.38-1.14, p<0.0001; I2 = 68%, p of Q test = 0.003). And there was no publication bias. Among the 8 studies, 5 studies identified active TAK with both PTX3 and CRP. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of PTX3 in active TAK diagnosis were higher than those of CRP (0.78 [95% CI = 0.65-0.87] vs. 0.66 [95% CI = 0.53-0.77], p = 0.012; 0.85 [95% CI = 0.77-0.90] vs. 0.77 [95% CI = 0.56-0.90], p = 0.033; 0.88 [95% CI = 0.85-0.90] vs. 0.75 [95% CI = 0.71-0.79], p < 0.0001). It showed potential publication bias using Egger's test (p of PTX3 = 0.031 and p of CRP = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS:PTX3 might be better than CRP in the assessment of TAK activity. Yet, it should be cautious before clinical use for moderate heterogeneity and potential publication bias of the meta-analysis.
Authors: Mattia Baldini; Norma Maugeri; Giuseppe A Ramirez; Chiara Giacomassi; Alessandra Castiglioni; Sergio Prieto-González; Marc Corbera-Bellalta; Gabriele Di Comite; Ilenia Papa; Giacomo Dell'antonio; Enrico Ammirati; Ivan Cuccovillo; Viviana Vecchio; Alberto Mantovani; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Maria Grazia Sabbadini; Maria C Cid; Angelo A Manfredi Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-03
Authors: Akihiro Shindo; Takakuni Maki; Emiri T Mandeville; Anna C Liang; Naohiro Egawa; Kanako Itoh; Naoki Itoh; Mia Borlongan; Julie C Holder; Tsu Tshen Chuang; John D McNeish; Hidekazu Tomimoto; Josephine Lok; Eng H Lo; Ken Arai Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: F Fazzini; G Peri; A Doni; G Dell'Antonio; E Dal Cin; E Bozzolo; F D'Auria; L Praderio; G Ciboddo; M G Sabbadini; A A Manfredi; A Mantovani; P R Querini Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2001-12
Authors: Gia Deyab; Ingrid Hokstad; Jon Elling Whist; Milada Cvancarova Småstuen; Stefan Agewall; Torstein Lyberg; Barbara Bottazzi; Pier Luigi Meroni; Roberto Leone; Gunnbjorg Hjeltnes; Ivana Hollan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ivana Rajkovic; Raymond Wong; Eloise Lemarchand; Jack Rivers-Auty; Olivera Rajkovic; Cecilia Garlanda; Stuart M Allan; Emmanuel Pinteaux Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 4.599