4.2 Article

ANCA Status or Clinical Phenotype - What Counts More?

Journal

CURRENT RHEUMATOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11926-021-01002-0

Keywords

Vasculitis; ANCA; Granulomatosis with polyangiitis; Microscopic polyangiitis; AAV

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Innsbruck
  2. Medical University of Innsbruck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent research suggests that a serology-based approach for classification of ANCA-associated vasculitides is more predictive and resembles genetic associations, clinical presentations, treatment responses, and comorbidities compared to a phenotype-based approach. Future studies may focus on this distinction to advance personalized medicine in the field.
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). 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available