4.5 Article

Use of Serum Clara Cell 16-kDa (CC16) Levels as a Potential Indicator of Active Pulmonary Fibrosis in Systemic Sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 877-884

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.100591

关键词

SERUM CLARA CELL 16-kDa (CC16); PULMONARY FIBROSIS; SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS; BIOMARKER

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591640] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To clarify the clinical significance of concentrations of serum Clara cell 16-kDa protein (CC16; previously denoted COO) in the diagnosis and monitoring of pulmonary fibrosis (PF) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc); and to compare CC16 levels with levels of the current most reliable serum markers for PF, such as Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) antigen and surfactant protein-D (SP-D). Methods. Serum levels of CC16, KL-6, and SP-D were determined by ELISA in 92 patients with SSc, 20 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and 20 healthy controls. In a retrospective longitudinal study, correlation of serum CC16 levels with the activity of PF was assessed in 16 SSc patients with PF. Results. Although CC16 levels were higher in patients with SSc than in SLE patients or healthy controls, the difference was not significant. Increased serum CC16 levels were associated with involvement of PF, especially active PF, as well as KL-6 and SP-D. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the utility of CC16 is slightly inferior to KL-6, but was comparable with that of SP-D for detecting PF in patients with SSc. In the longitudinal study, serum levels of CC16,KL-6, and SP-D were significantly decreased in the inactive disease phase compared to the active disease phase. Conclusion. CC16 levels can be used as a potential serum biomarker for PF in addition to and SP-D in patients with SSc. (First Release Jan 15 2011; J Rheumatol 2011;38:877-84; doi:10.3899/jrheum.100591)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据