PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12192541

Autoimmunity in thyroid disease.

Joanne Collins·Stephen Gough
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The autoimmune thyroid diseases, Graves' disease and autoimmune hypothyroidism, represent the two ends of a disease spectrum where an immune response is directed against the thyroid gland. In Graves' disease, antibodies directed against the thyrotropin receptor (TSH-R) lead to the development of glandular overactivity, while in autoimmune hypothyroidism, cell-mediated and humoral thyroid injury leads to destruction of thyroid tissue and thyroid hormone deficiency. The mechanisms by which these diseases develop are unknown, although it is likely that both diseases occur in genetically susceptible individuals exposed to a permissive environment. A number of environmental factors have been postulated to be involved in the development of autoimmune thyroid disease. There is, however, no direct evidence to support clear causality. Susceptibility loci within immune response genes have been identified although a significant component of the genetic predisposition to disease remains unknown. This review will focus on some of the studies designed to identify genes that confer susceptibility to the autoimmune disease process within the thyroid gland.

Explore related subjects

AbataceptAntigens, CDAntigens, DifferentiationAutoimmune DiseasesCTLA-4 AntigenChromosomes, HumanDiseases in TwinsEnvironmental ExposureGenetic LinkageGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGraves DiseaseHLA-D AntigensHumansImmunoconjugatesImmunoglobulins, Thyroid-StimulatingInterleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist ProteinLymphocyte ActivationReceptors, ThyrotropinSialoglycoproteinsThyroid DiseasesThyroiditis, AutoimmuneJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joanne Collins, Stephen Gough. 2002-06-04. Autoimmunity in thyroid disease.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-0848-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Effects of abatacept in patients with methotrexate-resistant active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept demonstrated efficacy for treating rheumatoid arthritis in early clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of abatacept in patients with persistent, active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. DESIGN: One-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (November 2002 to October 2004). SETTING: 116 centers worldwide. PATIENTS: 652 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. INTERVENTION: Once-monthly infusion of a fixed dose of abatacept, approximately 10 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Co-primary end points were a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR 20) at 6 months, clinically meaningful improvements in physical function, and change from baseline in joint erosion score at 1 year. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three and 219 patients were randomly assigned to abatacept or placebo, respectively, and 385 (89%) and 162 (74%), respectively, completed 1 year of treatment. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, 6-month ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 responses were 67.9% for abatacept versus 39.7% for placebo (difference, 28.2 percentage points [95% CI, 19.8 to 36.7 percentage points]), 39.9% for abatacept versus 16.8% for placebo (difference, 23.0 percentage points [CI, 15.0 to 31.1 percentage points]), and 19.8% for abatacept versus 6.5% for placebo (difference, 13.3 percentage points [CI, 7.0 to 19.5 percentage points]), respectively. At 1 year, the responses increased to 73.1% for abatacept versus 39.7% for placebo (difference, 33.4 percentage points [CI, 25.1 to 41.7 percentage points]), 48.3% for abatacept versus 18.2% for placebo (difference, 30.1 percentage points [CI, 21.8 to 38.5 percentage points]), and 28.8% for abatacept versus 6.1% for placebo (difference, 22.7 percentage points [CI, 15.6 to 29.8 percentage points]), respectively (P < 0.001 for all). Physical function significantly improved in 63.7% versus 39.3% of patients (P < 0.001). At 1 year, abatacept statistically significantly slowed the progression of structural joint damage compared with placebo. Abatacept-treated patients had a similar incidence of adverse events (87.3% vs. 84.0%; difference, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -2.5 to 9.1 percentage points]) and a higher incidence of prespecified serious infections (2.5% vs. 0.9%; difference, 1.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 3.6 percentage points]) and infusion reactions (acute, 8.8% vs. 4.1%; difference, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 0.9 to 8.4 percentage points]; peri-infusional, 24.5% vs. 16.9%; difference, 7.6 percentage points [CI, 1.2 to 14.0 percentage points]) compared with placebo recipients. LIMITATIONS: The study involved only 1 group of patients over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept statistically significantly reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Longer treatment in different patient populations is needed to establish its appropriate role in rheumatoid arthritis.

Abatacept↗