Humoral aspects of polymyositis/dermatomyositis

A Negative Antinuclear Antibody Does Not Indicate Autoantibody Negativity in Myositis: Role of Anticytoplasmic Antibody as a Screening Test for Antisynthetase Syndrome

Objective.

To evaluate the utility of anticytoplasmic autoantibody (anti-CytAb) in antisynthetase antibody–positive (anti-SynAb+) patients.

Methods.

Anti-SynAb+ patients were evaluated for antinuclear antibody (ANA) and anti-CytAb [cytoplasmic staining on indirect immunofluorescence (IIF)] positivity. Anti-SynAb+ patients included those possessing anti-Jo1 and other antisynthetase autoantibodies. Control groups included scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and healthy subjects. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy of anti-CytAb, and ANA were assessed. Anti-CytAb and ANA testing was done by IIF on human epithelial cell line 2, both reported on each serum sample without knowledge of the clinical diagnosis or final anti-SynAb results.

Results.

Anti-SynAb+ patients (n = 202; Jo1, n = 122; non-Jo1, n = 80) between 1985–2013 with available serum samples were assessed. Anti-CytAb showed high sensitivity (72%), specificity (89%), NPV (95%), and accuracy (86%), but only modest PPV (54%) for anti-SynAb positivity. In contrast, ANA showed only modest sensitivity (50%) and poor specificity (6%), PPV (9%), NPV (41%), and accuracy (12%). Positive anti-CytAb was significantly greater in the anti-SynAb+ patients than ANA positivity (72% vs 50%, p < 0.001), and 81/99 (82%) ANA-negative patients in the anti-SynAb+ cohort had positive anti-CytAb. In contrast, the control groups showed high rates for ANA positivity (93.5%), but very low rates for anti-CytAb positivity (11.5%). Combining anti-CytAb or Jo1 positivity showed high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (89%) for identification of anti-SynAb+ patients.

Conclusion.

Assessing patients for anti-CytAb serves as an excellent screen for anti-SynAb+ patients using simple IIF. Cytoplasmic staining should be assessed and reported for patients suspected of having antisynthetase syndrome and a negative ANA should not be used to exclude this diagnosis.

Etanercept-induced anti-Jo-1-antibody-positive polymyositis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis: a case report and review of the literature

Antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy has been associated with adverse immunologic events including systemic lupus erythematosus. However, the development of polymyositis (PM)/dermatomyositis (DM) associated with anti-TNF therapy is extremely rare. We experienced a case of a 48-year-old female with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had anti-Jo-1 antibodies and interstitial lung disease but no previous history of PM/DM and who developed PM soon after the initiation of etanercept (ETN) therapy for RA. The patient recovered upon withdrawal from ETN and corticosteroid (CS) therapies. Only four reports of PM/DM associated with anti-TNF therapy for RA could be found in the literature. The patients described in three of the four reports were positive for anti-Jo-1 antibodies before the initiation of anti-TNF therapy, and in all the cases, recovery occurred after the cessation of anti-TNF-agent administration and CS therapy. These results suggest a relationship between the onset of PM/DM with anti-Jo-1 antibody and anti-TNF therapy for RA.

Clinical interpretation of antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases

Autoantibody tests have been used extensively in diagnosis and follow-up of patients in rheumatology clinics. Immunofluorescent antinuclear antibody test using HEp-2 cells is still considered the gold standard for screening of autoantibodies, and most of specific autoantibodies are currently tested by ELISA as a next step. Among the many autoantibody specificities described, some have been established as clinically useful diagnostic markers and are included in the classification criteria of diseases. Despite a long history of routine tests and attempts to standardize such assays, there are still limitations and problems that clinicians need to be aware of. Clinicians should be able to use autoantibody tests more efficiently and effectively with a basic knowledge on the significance of and potential problems in autoantibody tests.

Clinical and histopathological features of myopathies in Japanese patients with anti-SRP autoantibodies

To elucidate the clinical and histopathological features associated with autoantibodies to the signal recognition particle (SRP), we have studied 23 Japanese patients with this specificity among 3,500 patients with polymyositis/dermatomyositis and other connective tissue diseases. Anti-SRP antibodies were determined based on analysis of RNA and protein components by immunoprecipitation assays. The pathological analysis was performed by using special stainings including alkaline phosphatase, myosin ATPase, and modified Gomori trichrome stainings. Twenty-one (92%) of these 23 patients had myositis, 8 of whom (38%) required cytotoxic agents or intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in addition to corticosteroid therapy. Four patients (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, two of whom had no features of myositis. Muscle biopsy specimens of 11 patients were examined histologically in detail. All 11 had muscle fiber necrosis and/or regeneration, but only one had infiltration of inflammatory cells. Six of the 11 (55%) patients showed type I fiber predominance by ATPase staining, while eight control myositis patients without anti-SRP antibodies did not. There was no correlation of other neurogenic features in histology with the presence of anti-SRP antibodies. These studies suggest that anti-SRP autoantibodies are most likely to be related to myopathies that are resistant to corticosteroid therapy and without inflammation histopathologically.