ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
Anti-FHL1 autoantibodies in adult patients with myositis: a longitudinal follow-up analysis.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reducing Body Myopathy in Female Patients WithNeurology. Genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine prevalence and clinical associations of anti-Four-and-a-half-LIM-domain 1 (FHL1) autoantibodies in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and to evaluate autoantibody levels over time.
methodsSera at the time of diagnosis from patients with IIM (n = 449), autoimmune disease controls (DC, n = 130), neuromuscular diseases (NMDs, n = 16) and healthy controls (HC, n = 100) were analysed for anti-FHL1 autoantibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Patients with IIM FHL1+ and FHL1- were included in a longitudinal analysis. Serum levels were correlated to disease activity.
resultsAutoantibodies to FHL1 were more frequent in patients with IIM (122/449, 27%) compared with DC (autoimmune DC and NMD, 13/146, 9%, P < 0.001) and HC (3/100.3%, P < 0.001). Anti-FHL1 levels were higher in IIM [median (IQR)=0.62 (0.15-1.04)] in comparison with DC [0.22 (0.08-0.58)], HC [0.35 (0.23-0.47)] and NMD [0.48 (0.36-0.80)] P < 0.001. Anti-FHL1+ patients with IIM were younger at the time of diagnosis compared with the anti-FHL1- group (P = 0.05) and were seronegative for other autoantibodies in 25%.In the first follow-up, anti-FHL1+ sample 20/33 (60%) positive at baseline had turned negative for anti-FHL1 autoantibodies. Anti-FHL1 autoantibodies rarely appeared after initiating treatment. Anti-FHL1 autoantibody levels correlated with CK (r = 0.62, P= 0.01), disease activity measured using the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool (MYOACT) (n = 14, P = 0.004) and inversely with Manual Muscle Test-8 (r = -0.59, P = 0.02) at baseline.
conclusionAnti-FHL1 autoantibodies were present in 27% of patients with IIM; of these, 25% were negative for other autoantibodies. Other autoimmune diseases had lower frequencies and levels. Anti-FHL1 levels often decreased with immunosuppressive treatment, correlated with disease activity measures at diagnosis and rarely appeared after start of treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.