RMD Open (Mar 2023)

Type I interferon pathway assays in studies of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider

  • Mary K Crow,
  • Lars Rönnblom,
  • Dimitrios T Boumpas,
  • Robert Biesen,
  • George Bertsias,
  • Marie-Louise Frémond,
  • Marie Wahren-Herlenius,
  • Giulio Cavalli,
  • PG Conaghan,
  • Maija-Leena Eloranta,
  • Javier Rodríguez-Carrio,
  • Marianne Visser,
  • Agata Burska,
  • Willem A Dik,
  • Ed Vital,
  • Jan Rehwinkel,
  • Marjan Versnel

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002876
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 1

Abstract

Read online

Objectives To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology.Methods Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology.Results Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced.Conclusions Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No ‘gold standard’ represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.