ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Evaluating functional C1INH with multiple laboratory methods across Hereditary Angioedema types.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease characterized by recurrent episodes of edema and classified into HAE with C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1INH types 1 and 2) and HAE with normal C1INH (HAE-nC1INH). This study evaluates the function of C1 inhibitor (fC1INH) in patients with suspected HAE using several laboratory methods: dried blood spot (DBS), chromogenic assay, and ELISA with FXIIa and PKa (plasma kallikrein). The comparative approach aims to improve early detection and understanding of C1INH dysfunction in all HAE subtypes to reflect real-world diagnostic scenarios. Methods: We assessed the diagnostic performance of four fC1INH assays in a cohort of 148 HAE patients: 84 with HAE-C1INH (72 type 1 and 12 type 2) and 64 with HAE-nC1INH (53 HAE-FXII and 11 HAE-UNK). The gold-standard chromogenic assay and the two substrate-specific ELISAs (PKa and FXIIa) were compared to a novel DBS-based LC-MS/MS assay using endogenous C1s activity. For all fC1INH assays, values >50% were considered within the normal range. Results: In HAE-C1INH, the DBS assay showed the highest specificity (type 1: 98.6%, type 2: 100%) and 100% sensitivity for both subtypes. ELISA-FXIIa also performed well (specificity: 97.2% and 91.7%). In contrast, ELISA-PKa and the chromogenic assay showed reduced specificity in type 2 (25% and 66.7%, respectively). Among patients with HAE-FXII, fC1INH levels were reduced by 36.5% by ELISA-FXIIa (19/52), 19.1% by DBS (9/47), and 3.8% by ELISA-PKa (2/52), and no alterations were detected by the chromogenic assay. Some of the changes seen in other tests may be partly related to pregnancy in a few patients. In the HAE-UNK group, all 11 patients had fC1INH >50% in all methods. Conclusion: DBS-based LC-MS/MS and ELISA-FXIIa offer promising accuracy and broader applicability for early diagnosis of HAE types 1 and 2. The use of novel substrates and the inclusion of a clinically realistic cohort may enhance the translational relevance of these findings.
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.