Keratinocyte footprint assay discriminates antilaminin-332 pemphigoid from all other forms of pemphigoid diseases

Artificial Intelligence in Autoimmune Bullous Dermatoses

Dermatologists treating patients with Autoimmune Bullous Dermatoses (AIBDs), as well as the patients themselves, encounter challenges at every stage of their interaction, including dermatological and comorbidities assessment, diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, treatment, and follow-up monitoring. We summarize the current and potential future clinical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of AIBDs. Recent research and AI models have demonstrated their potential to enhance or may already be contributing to advancements in every phase of the comprehensive diagnosis and personalized treatment process in AIBDs, providing patients, clinicians, and administrators with valuable support. Image recognition AI systems might assist precise clinical diagnoses of various diseases, including AIBDs, and could offer consistent and reliable scoring of disease severity. Automated and standardized AI-assisted laboratory methods could improve the accuracy and decrease the time and cost of gold-standard tests such as direct and indirect immunofluorescence. The studies and tools discussed in this article, although in the early stages, might be a small precursor to a transformative shift in the way we take care of patients with chronic skin diseases, including AIBDs.

State-of-the-art diagnosis of autoimmune blistering diseases

Autoimmune blistering disorders (AIBDs) are a heterogeneous group of approximately a dozen entities comprising pemphigus and pemphigoid disorders and dermatitis herpetiformis. The exact diagnosis of AIBDs is critical for both prognosis and treatment and is based on the clinical appearance combined with the detection of tissue-bound and circulating autoantibodies. While blisters and erosions on the skin and/or inspectable mucosal surfaces are typical, lesions may be highly variable with erythematous, urticarial, prurigo-like, or eczematous manifestations. While direct immunofluorescence microscopy (IFM) of a perilesional biopsy is still the diagnostic gold standard, the molecular identification of the major target antigens opened novel therapeutic avenues. At present, most AIBDs can be diagnosed by the detection of autoantigen-specific serum antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or indirect IFM when the clinical picture is known. This is achieved by easily available and highly specific and sensitive assays employing recombinant immunodominant fragments of the major target antigens, i.e., desmoglein 1 (for pemphigus foliaceus), desmoglein 3 (for pemphigus vulgaris), envoplakin (for paraneoplastic pemphigus), BP180/type XVII collagen (for bullous pemphigoid, pemphigoid gestationis, and mucous membrane pemphigoid), laminin 332 (for mucous membrane pemphigoid), laminin β4 (for anti-p200 pemphigoid), type VII collagen (for epidermolysis bullosa acquisita and mucous membrane pemphigoid), and transglutaminase 3 (for dermatitis herpetiformis). Indirect IFM on tissue substrates and in-house ELISA and immunoblot tests are required to detect autoantibodies in some AIBD patients including those with linear IgA disease. Here, a straightforward modern approach to diagnosing AIBDs is presented including diagnostic criteria according to national and international guidelines supplemented by long-term in-house expertise.

Absence of Epidermal Antibodies in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Patients but Beware of Single Positive Results

Background

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare and potentially life-threatening mucocutaneous blistering diseases that clinically can resemble autoimmune bullous diseases. Moreover, it has been shown that autoantibodies against epidermal proteins are present in SJS/TEN.

Objectives

To establish the presence of antibodies against desmosomal and hemidesmosomal proteins in confirmed SJS/TEN patients.

Methods

Serum of SJS/TEN patients diagnosed based on clinical criteria, e.g., epidermal detachment with erosions and severe mucosal lesions, (suspicion of) a culprit drug, and matching histologic results was evaluated by various techniques, e.g., indirect immunofluorescence on monkey esophagus, salt split skin and rat bladder, immunoblotting (IB) and immunoprecipitation (IP), ELISAs against desmogleins and BP180, keratinocyte footprint assay, and keratinocyte binding assay.

Results

A total of 28 patients were included in this study, 15 men and 13 women with a mean age of 56 years. In most patients, none of the serological tests were positive. In two patients, an elevated DSG3 titer was found suspicious for pemphigus vulgaris. Three patients had elevated NC16a titers, suggesting bullous pemphigoid. However, in all these patients, no other tests were positive and in these patients, the biopsy for direct immunofluorescence showed no evidence for an autoimmune bullous disease. Three patients showed reactivity against rat bladder rat bladder; these were, however, completely negative for A2ML1, envoplakin, and periplakin in the IB as well as the IP.

Conclusions

Serological analysis for desmosomal and hemidesmosomal antibodies is reliable to rule an autoimmune bullous disease in patients with suspected SJS/TEN. However, one should not rely on one single test method since false positive results can occur. Moreover, this study also makes it less plausible that antibodies against desmosomal and/or hemidesmosomal components are involved in the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN.

Patients suffering from dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa are prone to developing autoantibodies against skin proteins: A longitudinal confirmational study

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a heritable skin blistering disease caused by variants in genes coding for proteins that secure cell-cell adhesion and attachment of the epidermis to the dermis. Interestingly, several proteins involved in inherited EB are also associated with autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBD). In this study, we present a long-term follow-up of 15 patients suffering from recessive dystrophic or junctional EB. From these patients, 62 sera were analysed for the presence of autoantibodies associated with AIBD. We show that patients suffering from recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB) are more susceptible to developing autoantibodies against skin proteins than patients suffering from junctional EB (70% vs. 20%, respectively). Interestingly, no correlation with age was observed. Most patients showed reactivity to Type XVII collagen/linear IgA bullous dermatosis autoantigen (n = 5; 33%), followed by BP230 (n = 4; 27%), Type VII collagen (n = 4; 27%) and laminin-332 (n = 1; 7%). The pathogenicity of these autoantibodies remains a subject for future experiments.

Autoimmunity against laminin 332

Laminin 332 is a heterotrimeric structural protein of the basal membrane zone (BMZ) of the skin and adjacent mucosal tissues. The importance of laminin 332 for the structural integrity of the BMZ is demonstrated by mutations in any of the three genes encoding for its three chains causing variants of junctional epidermolysis bullosa. Autoimmunity against laminin 332 is observed in mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) and in the rare patients with orf-induced pemphigoid. MMP is an autoimmune blistering disease with predominant mucosal manifestations and autoantibodies against the BMZ of the skin and orifice-close mucous membranes. The main autoantigens of MMP are type XVII collagen (BP180) and laminin 332 targeted in about 80% and 10-20% of patients, respectively. An increasing number of studies has highlighted the association of anti-laminin 332 MMP and malignancies that can be revealed in about a quarter of these patients. This data has led to the recommendation of current guidelines to assay for anti-laminin 332 reactivity in all MMP patients. The present review focuses on anti-laminin 332 MMP describing clinical features, its pathophysiology, and detection of serum anti-laminin 332 IgG. In addition, the available data about the occurrence of malignancies in anti-laminin 332 MMP, the underlying tumor entities, and its biology are detailed.

Anti-Laminin 332-Type Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid

Anti-laminin (LM) 332-type mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is a rare autoimmune bullous disease and was originally discovered as anti-epiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid. Anti-LM332-type MMP has clinical manifestations similar to those of other types of MMP and can only be distinguished through the detection of circulating autoantibodies against LM332. Our group and others have established a number of immunological methods with varying sensitivity and specificity for detection of anti-LM332 autoantibodies; however, none of the established methods has been widely used for clinical diagnosis. There is currently no unified standard treatment, and it is very difficult to completely cure anti-LM332-type MMP. In addition, an increasing body of evidence suggests that there may be a strong correlation between anti-LM332-type MMP and tumors. In this article, we review the current progression of diagnosis and treatment of anti-LM332-type MMP, as well as the possible correlation between anti-LM332-type MMP and tumors.

A Probing of the Issue of Detecting IgG, IgG4 and IgA Antibodies to Laminin 332 Epitopes in Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: A Clinical-Laboratory Experience of a Single Central European University Dermatology Department

Purpose

Mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is a very rare autoimmune bullous disease, affecting predominantly the mucosae and characterized by autoantibodies to the epithelial basement membrane components. Laminin 332 (Ln-332) is one of the most probable antigens with association with malignancy. The laboratory diagnosis of Ln-332-mediated autoimmunity is troublesome. The aim here was to comparatively examine IgG, IgG4, and IgA autoantibodies specific to α3, β3 or γ2 subunits of Ln-322 in MMP patients using the BIOCHIP mosaic-based indirect immunofluorescence technique (IIF).

Patients and Methods

Sera from 15 MMP patients were studied. BIOCHIP mosaic-based Ln-332 IIF, direct immunofluorescence, ELISA tests for anti-BP180/BP20 IgG antibodies and statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Of all the 15 sera examined for IgG4 antibodies, only 1 (6.67%) reacted with the α3 chain, 0 with the β3 chain, and 0 with the γ2 chain. No positive reactivity was seen with the IgG and IgA antibodies. BIOCHIP mosaic-based IIF with Ln-332 showed 100% sensitivity, 8% specificity, 21% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value in relation to the diagnostic gold standard of DIF. The concomitant malignancies were revealed in three cases.

Conclusion

The detection of antibodies to Ln-332 chains is occasional in Polish MMP sufferers. Still, the evaluation of IgG4 antibodies in MMP can reduce the false-negative results.

Mucous membrane pemphigoid

Mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is a clinically and immunopathologically heterogenous disease with an incidence of about 2/million inhabitants/year in central Europe. Pemphigoid diseases are characterized by autoantibodies against structural proteins of the epidermis and/or surface-close epithelia. MMP has been defined as pemphigoid disease with predominant mucosal lesions. Most frequently, the oral cavity and the conjunctivae are affected. Lesions outside the mouth tend to heal with scarring leading to visual impairment and finally blindness, as well as, more rarely, impairment of breathing and food intake. Autoantibodies target BP180 (collagen type XVII), laminin 332, BP230 (nearly always in conjunction with other antigens), and type VII collagen in about 75%, 10-20%, 10-30%, and <5% of MMP patients, respectively. While the main autoantibody isotype is IgG, additional, and less frequently, exclusive IgA autoantibodies can be detected in the majority of patients. Assaying for anti-laminin 332 reactivity is pivotal, since in about a quarter of patients with anti-laminin 332 MMP, a malignancy, mainly solid cancers, is associated. The pathophysiology of MMP is yet incompletely understood. A recent mouse model of anti-laminin 332 MMP replicating characteristic clinical and immunopathological findings of the human disease may be helpful to close this knowledge gap. Diagnosis is established by the clinical picture with predominant mucosal lesions and visualization of tissue-bound anti-basement membrane zone antibodies by direct immunofluorescence microscopy. In recent S3 guidelines initiated by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, the clinical spectrum and diagnostic strategies are detailed. In addition, treatment regimens for different clinical situations including patients with exclusive oral or ocular involvement are outlined. Future studies are needed to better understand the clinal complexity and associations as well as to establish widely available diagnostic assays and evidence-based therapeutic strategies.

Insights in clinical and diagnostic findings and treatment responses in patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid, a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The variable clinical severity of MMP often leads to a diagnostic and therapeutic delay.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics in a large cohort of patients with MMP.

METHODS

A retrospective review study of clinical and diagnostic characteristics and treatment response in 145 patients with MMP.

RESULTS

Monosite involvement was seen in 41.4% and multisite involvement in 58.6% patients. The oral mucosa was affected in 86.9%, followed by the ocular mucosa (30.3%), skin (26.2%), genital mucosa (25.5%), nasal mucosa (23.4%) and pharyngeal and/or laryngeal mucosa (17.2%). Ocular disease developed during disease course in 41.7% of patients with initially other mucosal site involvement. The malignancy rate was significantly higher in patients with autoantibodies against laminin-332 compared to MMP patients without laminin-332 autoantibodies (35.3% vs. 10.9%, p=0.007). Systemic immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy were administered in 77.1% of the patients, mainly in patients with multisite involvement (p<0.001), ocular involvement (p<0.001) and pharyngeal and laryngeal involvement (p=0.002). The remaining patients (22.9%) received topical therapy. Adverse events were frequently reported.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

MMP presents with a heterogeneous clinical presentation and new symptoms may develop during the disease course. Cancer screening should be considered in MMP and in particular with autoantibodies against laminin-332.

Comparison of Two Diagnostic Assays for Anti-Laminin 332 Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid

Anti-laminin 332 mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is an autoimmune blistering disease characterized by predominant mucosal lesions and autoantibodies against laminin 332. The exact diagnosis of anti-laminin 332 MMP is important since nearly 30% of patients develop solid cancers. This study compared two independently developed diagnostic indirect immunofluorescence (IF) tests based on recombinant laminin 332 expressed in HEK239 cells (biochip mosaic assay) and the migration trails of cultured keratinocytes rich in laminin 332 (footprint assay). The sera of 54 anti-laminin 332 MMP, 35 non-anti-laminin 332 MMP, and 30 pemphigus vulgaris patients as well as 20 healthy blood donors were analyzed blindly and independently. Fifty-two of 54 and 54/54 anti-laminin 332 MMP sera were positive in the biochip mosaic and the footprint assay, respectively. In the 35 non-anti-laminin 332 MMP sera, 3 were positive in both tests and 4 others showed weak reactivity in the footprint assay. In conclusion, both assays are easy to perform, highly sensitive, and specific, which will further facilitate the diagnosis of anti-laminin 332 MMP.

Autoantibody Detection for Diagnosis in Direct Immunofluorescence-Negative Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: Ocular and Other Sites Compared

PURPOSE

To assess whether a panel of serum pemphigoid autoantibody tests could be used to confirm an immunopathologic diagnosis of mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) in direct immunofluorescent negative (DIF-) MMP patients.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-six patients with multisite MMP with 45 matched control participants.

METHODS

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for BP180 and BP230 (MBL International), immunoglobulin A (IgA) A and immunoglobulin G indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on human salt-split skin and the keratinocyte footprint assay for anti-laminin 332 antibodies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity and specificity of autoantibody detection and significant differences for individual tests and test combinations for MMP involving different sites.

RESULTS

All DIF- patients (24/73 [31.8%]) had either ocular-only disease or ocular involvement in multisite disease. Serum pemphigoid autoantibodies were detected in 29 of 76 MMP patients (38.2%) compared with 3 of 45 control participants (6.7%). Autoantibody reactivity detected by any 1 or more of the tests was present in 6 of 24 DIF- patients (25%) compared with 22 of 49 DIF positive (DIF+) patients (44.9%). Ocular-only MMP serum reactivity was not significantly different for any test or test combination compared with control participants, whereas DIF- multisite ocular MMP differed for 1 ELISA and 3 of 7 test combinations. By contrast, for DIF+ nonocular MMP patients, all the individual tests, apart from IgA IIF, and all test combinations were significantly different compared with those for control participants. For the entire MMP cohort, the sensitivity of all individual tests was low, having a maximum of 21.05% for BP180 reactivity but increasing to 38.16% for an optimal test combination. Disease activity was associated strongly with positive serologic findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Pemphigoid serum autoantibody tests did not provide immunopathologic evidence of MMP in ocular-only MMP patients but showed limited value in DIF- multisite ocular MMP patients. The requirement for immunopathologic confirmation of MMP by autoantibody detection is inappropriate for DIF- ocular-only MMP patients, resulting in missed diagnoses, delayed therapy, and poor outcomes. Alternative diagnostic criteria for ocular-only MMP are required to exclude the other causes of scarring conjunctivitis until more sensitive and specific immunopathologic tests become available.