ANCA Status or Clinical Phenotype — What Counts More?

23Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose of Review: There is ongoing debate concerning the classification of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. That is, whether classification should be based on the serotype (proteinase 3 (PR3)- or myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA) or on the clinical phenotype (granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA)). To add clarity, this review focused on integration of the most recent literature. Recent Findings: Large clinical trials have provided evidence that a serology-based risk assessment for relapses is more predictive than distinction based on the phenotype. Research conducted in the past decade indicated that a serology-based approach more closely resembles the genetic associations, the clinical presentation (i.e., lung involvement), biomarker biology, treatment response, and is also predicting comorbidities (such as cardiovascular death). Summary: Our review highlights that a serology-based approach could replace a phenotype-based approach to classify ANCA-associated vasculitides. In future, clinical trials and observational studies will presumably focus on this distinction and, as such, translate into a “personalized medicine.”

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Windpessl, M., Bettac, E. L., Gauckler, P., Shin, J. I., Geetha, D., & Kronbichler, A. (2021, June 1). ANCA Status or Clinical Phenotype — What Counts More? Current Rheumatology Reports. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-021-01002-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free