TY - JOUR
T1 - Type I interferon pathway assays in studies of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases
T2 - a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider
AU - Burska, Agata
AU - Rodríguez-Carrio, Javier
AU - Biesen, Robert
AU - Dik, Willem A.
AU - Eloranta, Maija Leena
AU - Cavalli, Giulio
AU - Visser, Marianne
AU - Boumpas, Dimitrios T.
AU - Bertsias, George
AU - Wahren-Herlenius, Marie
AU - Rehwinkel, Jan
AU - Frémond, Marie Louise
AU - Crow, Mary K.
AU - Ronnblom, Lars
AU - Conaghan, P. G.
AU - Versnel, Marjan
AU - Vital, Ed
N1 - Funding Information:
PGC and EV are supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre.
Funding Information:
This work was funded by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) (grant number SCI019).
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2023/3/2
Y1 - 2023/3/2
N2 - Objectives To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology. Methods Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology. Results Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced. Conclusions Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No â € gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.
AB - Objectives To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology. Methods Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology. Results Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced. Conclusions Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No â € gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.
KW - Arthritis
KW - Cytokines
KW - Inflammation
KW - Lupus Erythematosus
KW - Rheumatoid
KW - Systemic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149306890&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85149306890&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002876
DO - 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002876
M3 - Article
C2 - 36863752
AN - SCOPUS:85149306890
SN - 2056-5933
VL - 9
JO - RMD Open
JF - RMD Open
IS - 1
M1 - e002876
ER -