Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a recently described inflammatory and scarring type of hair loss affecting almost exclusively women. Despite a dramatic recent increase in incidence the aetiopathogenesis of FFA remains unknown. We undertake genome-wide association studies in females from a UK cohort, comprising 844 cases and 3,760 controls, a Spanish cohort of 172 cases and 385 controls, and perform statistical meta-analysis. We observe genome-wide significant association with FFA at four genomic loci: 2p22.2, 6p21.1, 8q24.22 and 15q2.1. Within the 6p21.1 locus, fine-mapping indicates that the association is driven by the
HLA-B*07:
02 allele. At 2p22.1, we implicate a putative causal missense variant in
CYP1B1
, encoding the homonymous xenobiotic- and hormone-processing enzyme. Transcriptomic analysis of affected scalp tissue highlights overrepresentation of transcripts encoding components of innate and adaptive immune response pathways. These findings provide insight into disease pathogenesis and characterise FFA as a genetically predisposed immuno-inflammatory disorder driven by
HLA-B*07:
02.
IntroductionUK guidelines recommend that all early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are offered combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and short-term corticosteroids. Anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive and ACPA-negative RA may differ in their treatment responses. We used data from a randomized controlled trial - the Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA (CARDERA) trial - to examine whether responses to intensive combination treatments in early RA differ by ACPA status.MethodsThe CARDERA trial randomized 467 early active RA patients to receive: (1) methotrexate, (2) methotrexate/ciclosporin, (3) methotrexate/prednisolone or (4) methotrexate/ciclosporin/prednisolone in a factorial-design. Patients were assessed every six months for two years. In this analysis we evaluated 431 patients with available ACPA status. To minimize multiple testing we used a mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA model to test for an interaction between ACPA and treatment on mean changes from baseline for each outcome (Larsen, disease activity scores on a 28-joint count (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQol, SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores). When a significant interaction was present, mean changes in outcomes were compared by treatment group at each time point using t-tests stratified by ACPA status. Odds ratios (ORs) for the onset of new erosions with treatment were calculated stratified by ACPA.ResultsACPA status influenced the need for combination treatments to reduce radiological progression. ACPA-positive patients had significant reductions in Larsen score progression with all treatments. ACPA-positive patients receiving triple therapy had the greatest benefits: two-year mean Larsen score increases comprised 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27 to 5.05) with triple therapy and 9.58 (95% CI 6.76 to 12.39) with monotherapy; OR for new erosions with triple therapy versus monotherapy was 0.32 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; P = 0.003). ACPA-negative patients had minimal radiological progression irrespective of treatment. Corticosteroid’s impact on improving DAS28/PCS scores was confined to ACPA-positive RA.ConclusionsACPA status influences the need for combination DMARDs and high-dose tapering corticosteroids in early RA. In CARDERA, combination therapy was only required to prevent radiological progression in ACPA-positive patients; corticosteroids only provided significant disease activity and physical health improvements in ACPA-positive disease. This suggests ACPA is an important biomarker for guiding treatment decisions in early RA.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN32484878
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.