[Pubmed] Low Prevalence and Inconsistency of LRP4-IgG Detection in Suspected Myasthenia Gravis: A Multicenter CBA Compar
-
RSS-Bot
Auteur du sujet - Ami(e) de Diamant

- Messages : 6507
- Enregistré le : 31 mai 2020 09:57
- 6
- Zodiaque :
- Âge : 22
- Contact :
[Pubmed] Low Prevalence and Inconsistency of LRP4-IgG Detection in Suspected Myasthenia Gravis: A Multicenter CBA Compar
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2026 May;13(3):e200554. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200554. Epub 2026 Feb 20.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder primarily caused by antibodies targeting neuromuscular junction proteins, particularly the acetylcholine receptor and the muscle-specific tyrosine kinase. However, 10%-20% of patients with MG are double-seronegative (dsMG). Antibodies against low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4-IgG) have been found in a variable proportion of dsMG cases, but their frequency and clinical relevance remain unclear because of differences in assay methodologies and study populations. In this study, we assessed the frequency of LRP4-IgG in patients with suspected MG using different cell-based assay (CBA) protocols.
METHODS: In this multicenter observational study, we enrolled consecutive patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of MG. LRP4-IgG was tested by 2 centers using 3 different CBAs: live (l-CBA), methanol-fixed (mf-CBA), and paraformaldehyde-fixed (pf-CBA). Patients were classified as having MG or other disorders (ODs). Positive samples were cross-tested between centers.
RESULTS: Among 684 patients (302 with MG, 382 with ODs), LRP4-IgG was detected by mf-CBA in 2% (6/302) of MG cases and in 0.52% (2/382) of OD cases. Among patients with MG, 3.9% (4/102) of dsMG and 1% (2/200) of seropositive patients tested positive. Only 50% of mf-CBA-positive cases were confirmed by pf-CBA, and none were detected by l-CBA. Cross-center testing showed partial reproducibility.
DISCUSSION: LRP4-IgG detection in suspected MG is rare and inconsistent across assays, suggesting that routine testing is not currently warranted and that these antibodies are at present of limited diagnostic value. These findings highlight the need for standardized, validated LRP4-IgG assays. Future studies should focus on direct comparison and harmonization of testing protocols to clarify the clinical utility of LRP4-IgG testing.
PMID:41719501 | DOI:10.1212/NXI.0000000000200554
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4171950 ... 22+67771e2
Si vous appréciez notre travail, merci de nous soutenir un petit don en cliquant ICI
Pour obtenir la traduction en français,
cliquez sur le bouton situé dans la barre des menus en haut de cette page

Pour les donateurs, si cet article vous intéresse, nous pouvons faire l’acquisition d'un tiré-à-part.
Merci d'en faire la demande sur [email protected]
Bonne lecture...
Pour obtenir la traduction en français,
cliquez sur le bouton situé dans la barre des menus en haut de cette page

Pour les donateurs, si cet article vous intéresse, nous pouvons faire l’acquisition d'un tiré-à-part.
Merci d'en faire la demande sur [email protected]
Bonne lecture...





