 |
 |
|
Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Role of anti-CCP in RA diagnosis
Response
Biological significance of anti-CCP antibody in rheumatoid arthritis
Re: Prevalence of autoimmune diseases
Prevalence of autoimmune diseases
CCP or RF Which Should It Be
|
|
|||
|
Theodore Pincus, MD NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Yusuf Yazici, MD
Send rapid response to journal:
tedpincus{at}gmail.com Theodore Pincus, et al.
|
A recent meta-analysis (1), editorial (2) and correspondence (3, 4) concerning anti-CCP in rheumatoid arthritis suggest that anti-CCP may identify a possible unique subset of patients with RA. This intriguing hypothesis requires further research. Anti-CCP provides higher hazard ratios than rheumatoid factor to identify people with progressive inflammatory joint disease. However, anti-CCP hardly provides a definitive clinical test. Appendix Table 1 (1) indicates median sensitivity of 63.4% (mean 64%) and median specificity of 96.1% (mean 93.9%) of anti-CCP for progressive inflammatory arthritis in 37 studies. Therefore, more than one-third of people with progressive inflammatory arthritis are negative for anti-CCP, while 3.9% of people with anti-CCP do not have progressive inflammatory arthritis. Appendix Table 2 indicates a median sensitivity of 67% (mean 65.3%) and median specificity 89.7% (mean 83.7%) of rheumatoid factor test for rheumatoid arthritis in 50 studies. The sensitivity is similar anti-CCP. The primary basis for improved hazard ratios for anti-CCP is greater specificity. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis is 0.5%. If 63% are anti-CCP- positive, 0.3% of the population has anti-CCP and rheumatoid arthritis. However, 3.9% of individuals who do not have progressive inflammatory arthritis have positive anti-CCP tests, and 15% of the population has musculoskeletal complaints. These simple calculations indicate that if an anti-CCP test were used to identify all individuals with musculoskeletal pain who might have progressive inflammatory arthritis, 1 in 3 individuals would be missed, and 1 in 2 individuals with a positive test would be misclassified. We suggest that is not satisfactory for a clinical test. These comments in no way deny the possible research value of anti-CCP to better understand pathogenesis of and develop new treatments for inflammatory arthritis. However, the “gold standard” for a diagnosis of progressive inflammatory arthritis remains careful assessment and observation over 3–6 months by a knowledgeable physician. Spontaneous remission has been recognized in 75% of people who met criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in population-based studies (5, 6), but people who have persistent arthritis over 6 months are unlikely to enjoy spontaneous remission. A 30–60 day “n of 1” trial of low-dose methotrexate and/or prednisone is far less expensive and more likely medically effective than an anti-CCP test for people with suspected progressive inflammatory arthritis (7). Anti-CCP testing in routine care to guide for diagnosis and clinical decisions appears a poor use of limited resources available for people with rheumatic diseases and physicians who provide their care. Reference List 1. Nishimura K, Sugiyama D, Kogata Y, Tsuji G, Nakazawa T, Kawano S et al. Meta-analysis: Diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146:797-808. 2. Finckh A, Liang MH. Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis: Bayes clears the haze. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:816-817. 3. Roubenoff R, Beckman E, Weinblatt M, Shadick N, Gregersen PK. Biological significance of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody in rheumatoid arthritis. [Comment on Ann Intern Med 2007;146:797-808.] Ann Intern Med 2008;148:403. 4. Arkfeld DG. Biological significance of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody in rheumatoid arthritis. [Comment on Ann Intern Med 2007;146:797-808.] Ann Intern Med 2008;148:403. 5. Mikkelsen WM, Dodge H. A four year follow-up of suspected rheumatoid arthritis: the Tecumseh, Michigan, community health study. Arthritis Rheum 1969; 12:87-91. 6. O'Sullivan JB, Cathcart ES. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis: follow-up evaluation of the effect of criteria on rates in Sudbury, Massachusetts. Ann Intern Med 1972; 76:573-577 7. Pincus T, Huizinga TWJ, Yazici Y. N-of-1 trial of low-dose methotrexate and/or prednisolone in lieu of anti-CCP, MRI, or ultrasound, as first option in suspected rheumatoid arthritis? J Rheumatol. 2007;34:250-252. Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kunihiro Nishimura, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. Harvard School of Public Health
Send rapid response to journal:
knishimu{at}hsph.harvard.edu Kunihiro Nishimura
|
Each letter in response to our article raises interesting points. We admit that early diagnosis of RA need the combination of anti-CCP and other new biological markers or diagnostic imaging. However, currently available studies for these are limited to conduct meta-analysis quantitatively. The aim of this study is to clarify the diagnostic value of anti-CCP from studies conducted so far. We appreciate the opinion expressed by Dr. Roubenoff and colleagues and agree that anti-CCP positive and negative RA is potentially different subset RA and other biological markers such as shared epitopes (SE) play important roles. However, from the currently available evidences, we believe arguing the sensitivity and specificity of anti-CCP for diagnosing RA is still crucial. First, although anti-CCP is widely used for diagnosing RA, new genetic markers such as shared epitopes are still not used routinely in daily practice. Second, the number of studies evaluating the SE and anti-CCP is still scarce and its clinical importance needs further evaluation. As far as we know, only one paper by Berglin et al reported the sensitivity and specificity for the combination of SE and anti-CCP 1). They reported the sensitivity of combination of anti-CCP with SE was only 28% and the specificity of SE is only 64%. We admit that the presence of anti-CCP antibodies interacts with genetic risk factors such as SE in the HLA locus 2). However, the data in the same study showed that anti-CCP was 50.9% positive for SE-negative NARAC cohort patients and this study has no information for specificity. To conduct systemic review for the diagnostic value of anti-CCP and other new biological markers, we need further studies. We appreciate Dr. Arkfield's indication for 3 potential murky points. First, for the early diagnosis of RA, we already evaluated and reported the sensitivity and specificities showed the same tendencies. 3). Second, we reported that, although the specificity of anti-CCP is 95%, the specificity of anti-CCP or RF is 83% due to low specificity of RF for other rheumatic diseases. Therefore, if we include positive result of either RF or anti-CCP as the positive criteria for RA, we would observe potentially seventeen positive out of hundred among no RA population and have more false positive results. Therefore, we discussed to measure both anti-CCP and RF in case of patients with high prior probability of RA or patients in rheumatology clinics to avoid missing potentially treatable patient. Interpretation of these tests needs the prudent judgment with other clinical information. Third, although the currently commercially available anti-CCP is second generation in most of the time, old studies used first generation anti-CCP but its sensitivities are lower than RF. The second generation CCP was developed to improve the sensitivities 4). We excluded the studies not by the generation of anti-CCP but the availability of the information to calculate LRs, the sensitivity, and specificity. Studies that did not report the specificity give us no information for the false positives that Dr. Arkfield cared. To evaluate the points indicated by these two letters need the accumulation of more concrete evidences and we will try to address these problems in the future study. Kunihiro Nishimura, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. Akio Morinobu, M.D., Ph.D. Schunichi Kumagai, M.D., Ph.D. Reference. 1) Berglin E, Padyukov L, Sundin U, Hallmans G, Stenlund H, Van Venrooij WJ, Klareskog L, Dahlqvist SR. A combination of autoantibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) and HLA-DRB1 locus antigens is strongly associated with future onset of rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis Res Ther. 2004;6(4):R303-8. 2)Lee H-S, Irigoyen P, Kern M, et al. Interaction between smoking, the shared epitope, and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2007;56(6):1745-53. 3) Nishimura K, Sugiyama D, Kogata Y, et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:797- 808. 4) Van Gaalen FA, Visser H, Huizinga TWJ (2005) A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of the first and second anti- cyclic citrullinated peptides (CCP1 and CCP2) autoantibody tests for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 64, 1510¨C2. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ronenn Roubenoff, MD, MHS Biogen Idec and Tufts University, Evan Beckman, Nancy A. Shadick, Michael Weinblatt, and Peter K. Gregersen
Send rapid response to journal:
ronenn.roubenoff{at}biogenidec.com Ronenn Roubenoff, et al.
|
To the Editor: We read with great interest the through meta-analysis and review of the diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by Nishimura et al.1 The authors conclude that while anti-CCP antibodies are more specific than rheumatoid factor, their sensitivity is only 67%. However, we believe that anti-CCP may in fact define a biologically distinct subset of RA, and as such a simple assessment of their sensitivity for RA in toto may be misleading. Emerging data show that the presence of anti-CCP antibodies interacts with genetic risk factors such as the shared epitope in the HLA locus2; environmental risk factors such as smoking3, 4; and response to treatment5. Thus CCP positivity may not be important so much for diagnosing RA as for being the first of a new generation of biomarkers that allow us to redefine RA according to biological and genetic categories rather than purely phenotypic ones. Such a transition has already begun in oncology, where lymphomas have been reclassified according to biomarker status rather than histology, leading to better definition of prognosis and treatment responses6. Thus, in the future we should be thinking not about the sensitivity and specificity of CCP for RA, but rather about CCP-positive RA vs. CCP-negative RA. Ronenn Roubenoff, MD, MHS, FACP, FACR Evan Beckman, MD Biogen Idec Immunology Research & Development Cambridge, MA Michael Weinblatt, MD Nancy Shadick, MD, MPH Brigham & Women’s Hospital Boston, MA Peter K. Gregersen, MD Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY 1. Nishimura K, Sugiyama D, Kogata Y, et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:797- 808. 2. Irigoyen P, Lee A, Wener M, et al. Regulation of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2005;52(12):3813-8. 3. Pedersen M, Jacobsen S, Garred P, et al. Strong combined gene- environment effects in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-positive rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2007;56(5):1446-53. 4. Lee H-S, Irigoyen P, Kern M, et al. Interaction between smoking, the shared epitope, and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2007;56(6):1745-53. 5. Mikuls T, O'Dell J, Stoner J, et al. Association of rheumatoid arthritis treatment response and disease duration with declines in serum levels of IgM rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2004;50(12):3776-82. 6. Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan W, et al. Molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;346(25):1937-47. Conflict of Interest:Drs. Roubenoff and Beckman are employees of Biogen Idec, Inc. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Prasanta Padhan, MD,Post Doctoral Fellow Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology,Christian Medical College,Vellore, TN,India,632004
Send rapid response to journal:
prasanta.padhan{at}gmail.com Prasanta Padhan, et al.
|
There are two group of autoimmune diseases-organ specific and systemic.Nishimura et al in their meta-analysis consider rheumatoid arthritis as the most common systemic autoimmune disease(1).However,hypothyroidism remains the most common organ specific autoimmune disease.Hence it should not create cofusion amongst the physicians. Reference: (1)Nishimura K et al.Meta-analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy of Anti–Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody and Rheumatoid Factor for Rheumatoid Arthritis.Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 797-808. Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Edgard Gonzalez Feldman M.D., M.D. St. John River District Hospital
Send rapid response to journal:
gonzalez_feldman{at}hotmail.com Edgard Gonzalez Feldman M.D.
|
In their meta-analysis Nishimura et al. estate that rheumatoid arthritis is the most common autoimmune disease with a prevalence of 1% in the world's population. But many studies have prooven that autoimmune hypothyroidism is by far more common. In the Wickham Survey (1,2) clinical autoimmune thyroid disease had a prevalence of 2% in women and 0.2% in men. The prevalence of subclinical disease is known to be much higher . In the NHANES-III survey, the prevalence of autoimmune hypothyroidism was 4% and the prevalence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies was close to 15%(3). 1.Turnbridge, WM, Evered, DC, Hall, R, et al. The spectrum of thyroid disease in a community: the Wickham survey. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1977; 7: 481. 2. Vanderpump, MPJ, Turnbridge, WMG, French, JM, ET AL. The incidence of thyroid disorders in the community: a twenty year follow up of the Wickham study. Clin Endocrinol 1995; 43:55. 3. Hollowell, JG, Staehling, NW, Flanders, WD, et al. Serum TSH, T4 and thyroid antibodies in the United States Population (1988 to 1994): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). J lin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87: 489 Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD USC Keck School of Medicine
Send rapid response to journal:
arkfeld{at}usc.edu Daniel G. Arkfeld
|
It is with great interest that I read the article entitled "Meta- analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy of Anti–Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody and Rheumatoid Factor for Rheumatoid Arthritis" by Nishimura et al. Certainly the use of anti-CCP testing has invigorated the importance of diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. However, there are 3 potential pitfalls in the study. First, up to 20% of new RA patients are seronegative in the first year, a time where early diagnosis is essential to prevent erosive joint disease. This is the time of utmost important and it would have been nice to see the anti-CCP data during the first year of disease. Other modalities including MRI and ultrasound are pursuing their role in the early detection of RA. Second, false positives do occur with the anti-CCP test due to cross reactivity to citrullinated proteins found in inflammed joints. Personally, I have several gout and lupus patients who have tested false positive for anti-CCP which in some cases has delayed a correct diagnosis. Third, most physicians including rheumatologist don't differentiate first and second generation CCP assays and use whatever is clinically available to them. As mentioned, this is an important area with false positive results. It appears that many of the studies excluded in the metaanalysis used such assays. Thus, in conclusion don't give fully up on the use of RF in diagnosing RA. Often the use of both a RF and a CCP test can be clues that lead to accurate assessment of RA. Additionally, the importance of rheumatology consultation to make an early diagnosis and initiate aggressive treatment is encouraged. Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
