Immunodiagnostic Significance of Anti-RA33 Autoantibodies in Saudi Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Al-Mughales, Jamil A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/604305

Journal of Immunology Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Abbreviations Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 | Article ID 604305 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/604305

Immunodiagnostic Significance of Anti-RA33 Autoantibodies in Saudi Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Jamil A. Al-Mughales¹

Academic Editor: Michael H. Kershaw

Received27 Dec 2014

Revised09 Mar 2015

Accepted15 Mar 2015

Published25 Mar 2015

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the immunodiagnostic significance and utility of anti-RA33 with anti-CCP, RF, and CRP in Saudi patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods. This was a prospective controlled clinical study conducted at King Abdul Aziz University Tertiary Medical Centre. The sera of 41 RA patients, 31 non-RA patients, and 29 healthy controls were collected. Anti-RA33 and anti-CCP were measured using commercially available ELISA principle kits. RF and CRP were measured using nephelometry. Results. Anti-RA33 antibodies had the lowest positive and negative predictive values and showed a sensitivity of 7.32% with 95.12% specificity. Of the other three markers (including anti-CCP antibodies, CRP, and RF), only anti-CCP showed specificity of 90.46% with sensitivity of 63.41% compared to non-RA patients + healthy control. There was a significant correlation with rheumatoid factor positivity with anti-CCP. With respect to CRP, a notable correlation was seen only with anti-RA33. Conclusion. Compared to rheumatoid factor, anti-CCP antibodies, and C-reactive proteins, the anti-RA33 autoantibodies seem to be not representing as an important additional immunodiagnostic marker in Saudi patients with established RA. RA33 may have more interest in early RA or less severe RA and other systemic connective tissue disorders.

1. Introduction

The production of autoantibodies against specific or several self-antigens in the body is the diagnostic hallmark of autoimmune disorders. The cause of such antibody production remains unknown and inadequately explained [1–3]. Under autoimmune conditions, certain components of the human cell are specifically targeted by autoantibodies. For example, in systemic lupus erythematosus, autoantibodies are produced against DNA (anti-dsDNA); in mixed connective tissue disease, autoantibodies are produced against ribonuclear protein (anti-RNP); in progressive systemic sclerosis, autoantibodies are produced against anti-t-RNA synthetase (anti-Scl70); and in polymyositis-dermatomyositis, autoantibodies against RNA are synthesized, anti-JO-I [4].

In the 1940s, the concept of autoimmunity in RA was proposed by Waaler, who threw light on the disturbances in the connective tissue metabolism involved in this disease [5]. Waaler demonstrated that the autoantibody RF is elevated in RA patients. Several years later, in 1970, Steffen hypothesized that RA could be a collagen autoimmune disease [6]. Subsequently, animal studies on type II collagen-induced arthritis confirmed this hypothesis [7–10]. Past clinical evidence has demonstrated the production of several autoantibodies, including RF and other anti-collagen antibodies, in synovial plasma cells in response to RA pathogenesis. These findings suggest local antigen activity in the immune response activation in synovial tissue [11–13]. Hitherto, and despite its nonspecificity, RF is still widely employed in the diagnostic work-up for RA [14–16]. Further recent studies suggest that combined utilisation of IgM and IgA RF autoantibodies offers higher specificity in RA, in comparison with IgM RF alone [17].

However, there still was a need to explore other diagnostic markers with greater specificity for RA. Substantial research that has been conducted in this direction came up with newer interesting markers such as anti-MCV and, more recently, anti-CCP antibodies, which showed a satisfying specificity in immunodiagnosis of RA [18–25]. Other studies reported another immunodiagnostic marker in RA patients called anti-RA33 [26].

Anti-CCP antibodies were discovered while exploring the sera of RA patients for further autoantibodies distinct from RF and anti-MCV. The first citrullinated-binding autoantibodies in rheumatoid sera were discovered by Niehus and Mandema in 1964 [21]. These autoantibodies demonstrated the ability to bind to perinuclear granules in normal human buccal mucosal cells and were named antiperinuclear factor. Past studies also showed that these autoantibodies occur in 48% of RA patients and only in 1% of healthy controls [22]. Subsequent studies discovered that conversion of arginine to citrulline on peptides was essential for anti-keratin antibody and perinuclear factor binding. Hence, these autoantibodies were later called anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies. Recent immunodiagnostic advances have further subdivided anti-CCP into anti-CCP1, anti-CCP2, and anti-CCP3 [22, 23]. Anti-CCP has a sensitivity range of 39–89% and a specificity range of 50–99% for the diagnosis of RA [24, 25, 27–29].

Anti-RA33 autoantibody, directed to RA33 complex, or heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleic protein (hnRNP), has been identified in RA patients sera since 1989 [4, 26, 30]. However, hnRNP-A2 (and its alternatively spliced variants B1 and B2) is the sole epitope of RA33 that is reported to be potentially autoantigenic in RA patients. Actually, about 30 different epitopes of hnRNP have been discovered, each epitope referring to the specific protein sequence combined to pre-mRNA to form the hnRNP complex. Besides, hnRNP-A2, a few other members of the big family of hnRNPs, have shown autoantigenic involvement, with more or less affinity, in systemic autoimmune rheumatoid diseases [3, 31]. Accordingly, detection of anti-RA33 autoantibodies has emerged in rheumatology practice, especially anti-A2/hnRNP (commonly referred to as anti-RA33) as an additional immunodiagnostic marker for RA [3, 30].

However, the diagnostic utility of anti-RA33 autoantibody in RA is still controversial, as it was recognized in a low proportion of RA patients [26, 30, 32]. Further researchers have demonstrated that anti-RA33 shows reliable sensitivity and specificity in patients with established RA [33, 34].

On the other hand, introducing anti-RA33 in the list of RA diagnostic markers is certainly a noteworthy progress in the field of RA research, whose real utility needs to be further explored.

The current study investigates the diagnostic reliability of anti-RA33 as an additional marker for RA compared to current immunodiagnostic markers including anti-CCP, RF, and CRP, among Saudi patients attending the rheumatology clinic at King Abdulaziz University’s Tertiary Care Medical Centre. This is the first time that such a study has been conducted in the Saudi population, which should further provide valuable data regarding the prevalence of RA33 autoantigen in this population. Moreover, although the reliability of these fairly autoantibodies has been reported before, the data is still scarce, and this study therefore contributes to and builds on the already accumulated evidence.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

This was a controlled clinical study conceptualized, designed, and conducted at the Diagnostic Immunology Division of King Abdulaziz University Tertiary Medical Centre. A total of 41 sera of Saudi RA patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were having established RA and meeting ACR classification criteria diagnosed by rheumatologist according to revised American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA [35].

A total of 31 non-RA patients (OA 7, SLE 5, SS 3, MCTD 3, other diseases 13) were also studied. They were assigned as controlled group. Inclusion criterion was RA which had been diagnosed by rheumatologist. An exclusion criterion was those suffering from connective tissue disorders. In addition, 29 healthy individuals were included as a healthy control group. All patients and controls are from the same ethnic origin.

C-reactive protein and RF levels were available for all patients.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at King Abdulaziz University Medical Centre.

2.2. Antibody Detection

Anti-CCP antibodies were detected using the commercially available Alegria instrument (Orgentic, Hamburg, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Anti-RA33 antibody was detected using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (Human, Wiesbaden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RF and CRP were also measured using a nephelometer (Siemens, Germany).

The assay reaction for anti-RA33 involves covalent immobilisation of recombinant RA33 (hnRNP/A2) to the solid phase of microtiter strips and subsequent binding of anti-RA33 antibodies from patient serum. The bound antibodies are detected with a peroxidase-labelled secondary antibody that is directed against human IgG. After addition of the substrate solution, the antibodies are stained. The intensity of the colour is proportional to the concentration and/or the avidity of the detected antibodies. After the addition of stop solution, the colour changes from blue to yellow. The results were calculated from the standard curve obtained.

The cut-off point is taken as recommended by the manufacturers (mentioned above) including anti-RA33 (above 25 U/mL are considered positive), anti-CCP (above 20 U/mL), CRP (above 3.5 mg/L), and RF (above 10 U/mL).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The RA group was evaluated using descriptive statistics: the means of the continuous variables were calculated, and frequency percentages were calculated for all categorical variables. To determine the reliability of the diagnostic test, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. As the sample size was less than 50, the qualitative relationship of each antibody with CRP and RF was assessed using Fischer’s exact chi-square test. Further, Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to assess the quantitative relationship of the anti-RA33 and anti-CCP assays with CRP and RF. A linear regression model was built for analyzing the nature of the relationship between all four diagnostic tests and the dependent variables. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.1.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

The disease showed a female predilection (80.5%) among the study of RA patients. The assay findings showed positive results for anti-RA33 (7.3%), anti-CCP (63.4%), and CRP (80.5%) and 51.2% were positive for rheumatoid factor. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the study groups (RA patients, non-RA patients and healthy controls); and Table 2 summarizes the results of the immunodiagnostic markers in the three study groups.

3.2. Sensitivity, Specificity, NPV, and PPV

The anti-CCP antibody showed 63.41% sensitivity for the detection of RA, and the anti-RA33 antibody showed a sensitivity of 7.32%. Anti-CCP demonstrated more favourable predictive values for RA than anti-RA33. Table 3 summarizes the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV values for the markers investigated in the study.

3.3. Qualitative Analysis

Results of the qualitative analysis revealed that, compared to the anti-RA33 test, the anti-CCP test was significantly more efficacious () in identifying 18 patients with rheumatoid factor positivity. The anti-RA33 results were not significant compared with rheumatoid factor () (Table 4).

3.4. Quantitative Analysis

The results of the quantitative analysis revealed a strong positive correlation () between the anti-RA33 and CRP values. However, a similar trend was not observed for the anti-RA33 and RF values. However, anti-CCP did not show any such correlation with CRP or RF. Table 5 summarizes the results of the correlation analysis.

3.5. Linear Regression Analysis

A linear regression analysis was also performed to understand the association between the examined diagnostic markers of RA and the CRP and RF values. The linear regression model demonstrated that only the anti-RA33 values changed with respect to the CRP values in a statistically significant manner (). No notable correlation was observed between anti-CCP and the CRP/RF values. The details of this analysis have been summarized in Table 6.

4. Discussion

In Saudi Arabia, there are no valuable reported evidence-based studies indicating the immunodiagnostic role of anti-RA33 in adult RA patients. The current study shows the evidence of inferior diagnostic value of anti-RA33, compared to anti-CCP, but also compared to CRP and RF in the immunodiagnosis of RA.

The reported association between anti-CCP and RA was confirmed in our study. Conversely, the values of sensitivity and specificity of anti-CCP test vary from one study to another. In a study by Kaptanoğlu et al. [36], the sensitivity and specificity were 53% and 79%, while in Awwad and Aboukhamis [32] they were reported to be 71.9% and 100%, respectively. Other studies also showed sensitivity range of 39–89% and a specificity of 50–99% for the diagnosis of RA [24, 25, 27–29].

However, the anti-CCP test values alone were significant in correctly identifying patients with RF positivity, as compared to the anti-RA33 test. On the other hand, changes in CRP values better correlate with the anti-RA33 values, which led us to infer that anti-CCP test could be used in identifying RF positive individuals. This might support utilizing this combination in monitoring the relapsing-remitting of the disease, which is compatible with previous studies that have confirmed that anti-CCP combined with RF appears to be even better prognostic marker [37].

In case of anti-RA33 antibodies, our study has indicated sensitivity of 7.3% and 96.5% specificity. Other authors reported 6–58% sensitivity and specificity of 69–96% [26, 29–31, 37, 38]. Although they do not mention the autoantigen source in their ELISA methods, few authors reported controversial data including 98% sensitivity and 20% specificity for anti-RA33 in RA patients [34]. However, our relative low sensitivity can be explained by the fact that the population of our study excluded early RA patients, as it concerned only established RA. Additionally, the significant linear relation between RA33 and CRP suggests that the few patients with positive RA33 have less severe RA.

In addition, to less sensitivity of anti-RA33, other previous studies confirm that anti-RA33 is not exclusively present in RA [4]. It is also present in SLE and MCTD [4]. Our study has observed only 1/5 SLE positive anti-RA33, but our sample size was not large enough to confirm the previous reported studies.

Although our findings were in agreement with most studies, the differences between our results and other studies reported above might be attributed to either RA severity or ethnic origin or might be due to the degree of the purification of the RA33 that has been used as recombinant autoantigens source in their ELISA methods. This is supported by recent data where authors used hnRNP B1 (RA33) as autoantigens and also suggested the influence of genetic involvement [31]. Moreover, the same authors reported that anti-hnRNP B1 autoantibodies are significantly more prevalent in RA patient with combined systemic sclerosis and hypertension [31].

In conclusion, our study suggests that anti-RA33 (IgG) autoantibodies (anti-hnRNP/A2) occur in Saudi RA patients with very low diagnostic sensitivity (7.32%), which seems to be not representing as an additional immunodiagnostic marker in established RA. In addition, it would be interesting to do larger future prospective studies to address the diagnostic significance of these autoantibodies in early RA and in established RA with less severe forms and in other connective tissue disorders.

Abbreviations

RA33:	Nuclear autoantigen with an apparent molecular mass of 33 kd
Anti-CCP:	Anti-citrullinated cyclic peptide
Anti-MCV:	Anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin
RF:	Rheumatoid factors
CRP:	C-reactive protein
hnRNP:	Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein
ELISA:	Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay
SLE:	Systemic lupus erythematous
SS:	Sjorgren’s syndrome
MCTD:	Mixed connective tissue diseases
OA:	Osteoarthritis
ACR:	American College of Rheumatology.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that no conflict of interests exists.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Mrs Malak Gahleb and Mr Raed Baeshen for their help in preparing this paper.

References

M. Burnet, “Auto-immune disease,” British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 5153, pp. 645–650, 1959.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Al-Mughales, Studies on chemoattractant activity of rheumatoid synovial fluid for human lymphocytes in vitro [Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy], Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, 1996.
J. Al-Mughales, T. H. Blyth, J. A. Hunter, and P. C. Wilkinson, “The chemoattractant activity of rheumatoid synovial fluid for human lymphocytes is due to multiple cytokines,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 230–236, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Skriner, W. H. Sommergruber, V. Tremmel et al., “Anti-A₂/RA33 autoantibodies are directed to the RNA binding region of the A₂ protein of the heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein complex: differential epitope recognition in rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and mixed connective tissue disease,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 127–135, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Waaler, “On the occurrence of a factor in human serum activating the specific agglutination of sheep blood corpuscles,” Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 172–188, 1940.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Steffen, “Consideration of pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis as collagen autoimmunity,” Zeitschrift für Immunitätsforschung, Allergie und Klinische Immunologie, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 219–227, 1970.
View at: Google Scholar
I. B. McInnes, J. Al-Mughales, M. Field et al., “The role of interleukin-15 in T-cell migration and activation in rheumatoid arthritis,” Nature Medicine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175–182, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Stuart, M. A. Cremer, A. S. Townes, and A. H. Kang, “Type II collagen-induced arthritis in rats. Passive transfer with serum and evidence that IgG anticollagen antibodies can cause arthritis,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 155, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Terato, K. A. Hasty, M. A. Cremer, J. M. Stuart, A. S. Townes, and A. H. Kang, “Collagen-induced arthritis in mice. Localization of an arthritogenic determinant to a fragment of the type II collagen molecule,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 637–646, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Holmdahl, L. Jansson, E. Larsson, K. Rubin, and L. Klareskog, “Homologous type II collagen induces chronic and progressive arthritis in mice,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 106–113, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. L. Hoffman, M. S. Goldberg, and J. D. Smiley, “Immunoglobulin G3 subclass production by rheumatoid synovial tissue cultures,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 136–144, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. L. Hoffman, A. A. Jump, and J. D. Smiley, “Synthesis of specific IgG idiotypes by rheumatoid synovium,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1196–1204, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
R. M. Wernick, P. E. Lipsky, E. Marban-Arcos, J. J. Maliakkal, D. Edelbaum, and M. Ziff, “IgG and IgM rheumatoid factor synthesis in rheumatoid synovial membrane cell cultures,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 742–752, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Smolen, “Autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis,” in Manual of Biological Markers of Diseases, W. J. van Venrooji and R. N. Maiini, Eds., section, C1.1, pp. 1–18, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
D. A. Houssien, T. Jonsson, E. Davies, and D. L. Scott, “Clinical significance of IgA rheumatoid factor subclasses in rheumatoid arthritis,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2119–2122, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Sutton, A. Corper, V. Bonagura, and M. Taussig, “The structure and origin of rheumatoid factors,” Immunology Today, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 177–183, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Conrad, D. Roggenbuck, D. Reinhold, and T. Dörner, “Profiling of rheumatoid arthritis associated autoantibodies,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 431–435, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sghiri, E. Bouajina, D. Bargaoui et al., “Value of anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin antibodies in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis,” Rheumatology International, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Rojanasantikul, P. Pattrapornpisut, K. Anuruckparadorn, and W. Katchamart, “The performance of a point of care test for detection of anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin and rheumatoid factor in early rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 919–923, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Yousefghahari, S. Alhooei, M. J. Soleimaniamiri, and A. Guran, “Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of anti-CCP and anti-MCV antibodies in an Iranian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 702–706, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
R. L. Niehus and E. Mandema, “A new serum factor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; the antiperinuclear factor,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 23, pp. 302–305, 1964.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Nicaise-Roland, L. Nogueira, C. Demattei et al., “Autoantibodies to citrullinated fibrinogen compared with anti-MCV and anti-CCP2 antibodies in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis at an early stage: data from the French ESPOIR cohort,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 357–362, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Santiago, M. Baron, K. Miyachi et al., “A comparison of the frequency of antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides using a third generation anti-CCP assay (CCP3) in systemic sclerosis, primary biliary cirrhosis and rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 77–83, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Egerer, E. Feist, and G.-R. Burmester, “The serological diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis—antibodies to citrullinated antigens,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, vol. 106, no. 10, pp. 159–163, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. B. Niewold, M. J. Harrison, and S. A. Paget, “Anti-CCP antibody testing as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in rheumatoid arthritis,” QJM, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 193–201, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hassfeld, G. Steiner, K. Hartmuth et al., “Demonstration of a new antinuclear antibody (anti-RA33) that is highly specific for rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 1515–1520, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Langguth and R. C. W. Wong, “Antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides: how they assist in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis,” Australian Prescriber, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 162–164, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
W. E. Zahran, M. I. Mahmoud, K. A. Shalaby, and M. H. Abbas, “Unique correlation between mutated citrullinated vimentine IgG autoantibodies and markers of systemic inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis patients,” Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 272–276, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. M. Van Boekel, E. R. Vossenaar, F. H. J. Van den Hoogen, and W. J. Van Venrooij, “Autoantibody systems in rheumatoid arthritis: specificity, sensitivity and diagnostic value,” Arthritis Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 87–93, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Steiner and J. Smolen, “Autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis and their clinical significance,” Arthritis Research, vol. 4, supplement 2, pp. S1–S5, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Maslyanskiy, N. Lazareva, P. Olinek et al., “Anti-hnRNP B1 (RA33) autoantibodies are associated with the clinical phenotype in Russian patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic sclerosis,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2014, Article ID 516593, 7 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Awwad and I. Aboukhamis, “Diagnostic performances of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies type IgM, IgA and IgG in Syrian patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical Laboratory, vol. 56, no. 3-4, pp. 95–102, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
M. M. Al-Ani, “Comparison of anti-filaggrin, anti-RA33 and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in Iraqi patients,” Iraqi Journal of Community Medicine, pp. 337–340, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Lashkari, A. Noori, F. Hajiimanouchehri, S. Oveisi, and A. M. Kazemifar, “Determination of specificity and sensitivity of anti-RA 33 in diagnosis of early rheumatoid arthritis,” Global Journal of Health Science, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 292–297, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Aletaha, T. Neogi, A. J. Silman et al., “Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2569–2581, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Kaptanoğlu, I. Nadir, Z. Bakıcı et al., “Differentiation of rheumatoid arthritis from HCV infection: rheumatoid factor, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide or anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin?” Turkish Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 19–23, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Cordonnier, O. Meyer, E. Palazzo et al., “Diagnostic value of anti-RA33 antibody, antikeratin antibody, antiperinuclear factor and antinuclear antibody in early rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with rheumatoid factor,” British Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 620–624, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hassfeld, G. Steiner, W. Graininger, G. Witzmann, H. Schweitzer, and J. S. Smolen, “Autoantibody to the nuclear antigen RA33: a marker for early rheumatoid arthritis,” British Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 199–203, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2015 Jamil A. Al-Mughales. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1950

Downloads

1017

Citations