Why the study?
Does the addition of anti-CarP antibodies to RF and anti-CCP improve the classification of early arthritis patients into rheumatoid arthritis?
Does the addition of anti-CarP antibodies to RF and anti-CCP improve the classification of early arthritis patients into rheumatoid arthritis?
The addition of anti-CarP antibodies to standard RF and anti-CCP testing does not meaningfully improve the classification of early arthritis into rheumatoid arthritis.
Anti-CarP addition yields modest sensitivity gain at specificity cost in early arthritis; leaves open its classification utility beyond RF/anti-CCP.
Classification of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as quickly as possible improves their prognosis. This reason motivates specially dedicated early arthritis (EA) clinics. Here, we have used 1062 EA patients with two years of follow-up to explore the value of anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies, a new type of RA specific autoantibodies, for classification. Specifically, we aimed to determine whether the addition of anti-CarP antibodies to IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies, which are helpful in RA classification, improves it or not. Our analysis showed that incorporation of the anti-CarP antibodies to combinations of the other two antibodies (all joint by the OR Boolean operator) produces a modest increase in sensitivity (2.2% higher), at the cost of decreased specificity (8.1% lower). The cost-benefit ratio was more favorable in the patients lacking the other autoantibodies. However, it did not improve by considering different titer levels of the anti-CarP antibodies, or after exhaustively exploring other antibody combinations. Therefore, the place in RA classification of these antibodies is questionable in the context of current treatments and biomarkers. This conclusion does not exclude their potential value for stratifying patients in joint damage, disease activity, disability, or mortality categories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Regueiro et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: