4.7 Article

Increased cysteinyl-leukotrienes and 8-isoprostane in exhaled breath condensate from systemic sclerosis patients

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 49, 期 12, 页码 2322-2326

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq271

关键词

Exhaled breath condensate; Fibrosis; High-resolution computer tomography; Leukotriene; Oxidative stress; Systemic sclerosis; Traction bronchiectasis; 8-Isoprostane

资金

  1. Apotekare Hedbergs Fund
  2. Crafoord Foundation
  3. Evy and Gunnar Sandberg Foundation
  4. Greta and Johan Kock Foundation
  5. Alfred Osterlund Foundation
  6. 80-Year Fund of King Gustav V
  7. Department of Rheumatology Lund University Hospital
  8. Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation
  9. Medical Faculty of Lund University
  10. Swedish Rheumatism Association
  11. Swedish Society of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. Twenty-two SSc patients with median disease duration of 2.1 years were investigated. Fifteen patients had lcSSc, four patients had dcSSc and three patients only fulfilled criteria for limited SSc. Sixteen healthy controls were enrolled. Cysteinyl-LTs (CysLTs), LTB4 and 8-isoprostane were measured in EBC with EIA and related to the radiologic extent of pulmonary fibrosis. Results. Compared with controls, SSc patients displayed higher median (interquartile range) CysLT [6.1 (5.3-6.8) vs 4.9 (3.7-6.3) pg/ml; P = 0.040], 8-isoprostane [0.23 (0.20-0.46) vs 0.19 (0.12-0.20) pg/ml; P = 0.0020], but similar levels of LTB4 [0.70 (0.50-0.83) vs 0.60 (0.42-0.70) pg/ml]. CysLT correlated to LTB4, while 8-isoprostane did not correlate to any of the LTs. None of the biomarkers measured in EBC correlated to radiologic findings. Conclusion. Increased levels of CysLT and 8-isoprostane in EBC from patients with SSc reflect the inflammatory pattern involving LTs as well as oxidative stress. These findings may indicate a possible non-invasive assessment of pulmonary involvement in SSc with a potential value for assessment of disease progress and therapy evaluation.

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

4.7
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