Objective: To evaluate the role of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test for the detection of antibodies to desmoglein 1 (dsg1) and desmoglein 3 (dsg3) in the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris (PV), and its...Objective: To evaluate the role of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test for the detection of antibodies to desmoglein 1 (dsg1) and desmoglein 3 (dsg3) in the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris (PV), and its correlation with disease severity and clinical presentation (mucosal PV, cutaneous PV, mucocutaneous PV). Methods: Twenty-seven active PV patients and 26 controls with other dermatologic disorders were included in the study. The severity of oral and cutaneous involvement was assessed and recorded. ELISA test for the measurement of anti-dsg1 and anti-dsg3 antibodies was performed (Medical and Biological Laboratories Co. Ltd., Nagoya, Japan). The cut-off ELISA value for both anti-dsg1 and anti-dsg3 was taken as 20. Results: Of the 27 patients, 26 were ELISA positive for anti-dsg1 antibodies and 23 for anti-dsg3 antibodies. Of the controls, two were positive for anti-dsg1 and none for anti-dsg3 antibodies. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA for anti-dsg1 in the diagnosis of PV were 96.3% and 92.3% , respectively. For anti-dsg3, they were 85.2% and 100% , respectively. The different morphologic types of PV could not be differentiated on the basis of antibody profile; however, a direct correlation between anti-dsg3 titers and the severity of oral disease was noted, and also between antidsg1 titers and the severity of cutaneous disease. Conclusions: ELISA (dsg1 and dsg3) is an efficient tool for confirming the diagnosis of PV. Specific antibody titers correlate with disease severity; however, desmoglein testing cannot differentiate between the various morphologic subtypes of PV.展开更多
文摘Objective: To evaluate the role of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test for the detection of antibodies to desmoglein 1 (dsg1) and desmoglein 3 (dsg3) in the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris (PV), and its correlation with disease severity and clinical presentation (mucosal PV, cutaneous PV, mucocutaneous PV). Methods: Twenty-seven active PV patients and 26 controls with other dermatologic disorders were included in the study. The severity of oral and cutaneous involvement was assessed and recorded. ELISA test for the measurement of anti-dsg1 and anti-dsg3 antibodies was performed (Medical and Biological Laboratories Co. Ltd., Nagoya, Japan). The cut-off ELISA value for both anti-dsg1 and anti-dsg3 was taken as 20. Results: Of the 27 patients, 26 were ELISA positive for anti-dsg1 antibodies and 23 for anti-dsg3 antibodies. Of the controls, two were positive for anti-dsg1 and none for anti-dsg3 antibodies. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA for anti-dsg1 in the diagnosis of PV were 96.3% and 92.3% , respectively. For anti-dsg3, they were 85.2% and 100% , respectively. The different morphologic types of PV could not be differentiated on the basis of antibody profile; however, a direct correlation between anti-dsg3 titers and the severity of oral disease was noted, and also between antidsg1 titers and the severity of cutaneous disease. Conclusions: ELISA (dsg1 and dsg3) is an efficient tool for confirming the diagnosis of PV. Specific antibody titers correlate with disease severity; however, desmoglein testing cannot differentiate between the various morphologic subtypes of PV.
