Next-Generation Autoantibody Testing by Combination of Screening and Confirmation-the CytoBead® Technology

Efficiency scale for scattering luminescent particles linked to fundamental and measurable spectroscopic properties

Comparing the performance of molecular and nanoscale luminophores and luminescent micro- and nanoparticles and estimating achievable signal amplitudes and limits of detection requires a standardizable intensity scale. This initiated the development of the relative MESF (number of molecules of equivalent soluble fluorochromes) and ERF (equivalent reference fluorophores) scales for flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy. Both intensity scales rely on fluorescence intensity values assigned to fluorescent calibration beads by an intensity comparison to spectrally closely matching fluorophore solutions of known concentration using a spectrofluorometer. Alternatively, the luminophore or bead brightness (B) can be determined that equals the product of the absorption cross section (σ_a) at the excitation wavelength (σ_a(λ_ex)) and the photoluminescence quantum yield (Φ_pl). Thereby, an absolute scale based on fundamental and measurable spectroscopic properties can be realized which is independent of particle size, material, and luminophore staining or labeling density and considers the sensitivity of the optical properties of luminophores to their environment. Aiming for establishing such a brightness scale for light-scattering dispersions of luminescent particles with sizes exceeding a few ten nanometers, we demonstrate how the brightness of quasi-monodisperse 25 nm, 100 nm, and 1 µm sized polystyrene particles (PSP), loaded with two different dyes in varying concentrations, can be obtained with a single custom-designed integrating sphere setup that enables the absolute determination of Φ_pl and transmittance and diffuse reflectance measurements. The resulting Φ_pl, σ_a(λ_ex), imaginary parts of the refractive index, and calculated B values of these samples are given in dependence of the number of incorporated dye molecule per particle. Finally, a unitless luminescence efficiency (LE) is defined allowing for the direct comparison of luminescence efficiencies of particles with different sizes.

Reliability and reproducibility of antinuclear antibody testing in pediatric rheumatology practice

Antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is common practice among health care practitioners when evaluating children and adolescents with non-specific symptoms including fatigue and aches and pains. When positive, ANA results often lead to referrals to pediatric rheumatologists as these antibodies may be key indicators for specific pediatric rheumatologic diagnoses. The reliability and reproducibility of ANA tests varies with assay techniques and validation and interpretation of results. In the following article, review of ANA testing in pediatrics is provided along with case examples that demonstrate the reliability and reproducibility of these results in specific scenarios common in the practice of pediatric rheumatology. Guidelines for more accurate utilization of ANA testing are presented with the aim to improve testing and interpretation by ordering clinicians.

Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays

BACKGROUND

Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies.

METHODS

Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods.

RESULTS

Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use.

Diagnosing coeliac disease: A literature review

Coeliac disease (CD) is an autoimmune gastroenteropathy triggered by gliadin and gliadin-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) complexes. CD is one of the few autoimmune diseases with an accurate, non-invasive serological test. Anti-endomysial, anti-tTG and anti-deaminated gliadin peptides (DGP) antibodies are currently used for serological tests with tTG ELISAs being the superior test. Duodenal biopsy, although invasive, is the gold standard for CD diagnosis. HLA genotyping and flow cytometry can also be used as supplementary tests. The incidence of CD is rising globally although the reasons for this remain unclear. In addition, the true incidence of coeliac disease in African populations remains unknown although recent work suggests that South African populations express the alleles associated with this disease. This review examines the pathogenesis and diagnosis of coeliac disease and considers novel and innovative biomarkers in its diagnosis specifically in an African population.

Frequency of Positive ANCA Test in a Population With Clinical Symptoms Suggestive of Autoimmune Disease and the Interference of ANA in its Interpretation

BACKGROUND

Antibodies against neutrophil cytoplasm (ANCA) are associated with vasculitis. There are different methods to determine their presence. The interference of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in the differentiation between P-ANCA and C-ANCA patterns has been described.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of ANCA in a population with manifestations of autoimmune disease, and evaluate the interference of ANA in its interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective, descriptive nonexperimental cross-sectional study, including 3,330 data. The presumptive diagnosis was autoimmune disease and a test for ANCA was requested. The ANCA and ANA determinations were made by indirect immunofluorescence, L-ANCA® and CytoBead® ANCA. Anti-proteinase 3 and anti-myeloperoxidase were detected by ELISA and CytoBead® ANCA.

RESULTS

ANCAs were positive in 10.21% and 12.64% of those positive for ANCA were positive for ANA. The inter-rater agreement statistic (Kappa) for anti-PR3 between CytoBead ANCA and ELISA was 100% (K=1.00; P<.05) and the agreement between anti- myeloperoxidase by ELISA and CytoBead® ANCA was high (K=0.94; P<.05). 30% of those with ANCAs had a diagnosis of a type of vasculitis; 20% of them had an autoimmune disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest an overestimated request for ANCAs as a diagnostic aid in primary care which was not addressed. For an adequate evaluation of ANCAs, the indirect immunofluorescence technique should be implemented for the control and confirmation with the determination of specific antigens for anti- proteinase 3 and anti- myeloperoxidase in any of the confirmatory assays. The high concordance shown by ANCA CytoBeads makes us consider the use of this alternative for the determination of ANCAs and the confirmation. Given the interference of ANAs, the ANA test by IFI in the presence of positive P-ANCA results is recommended in order to minimize "false positives".

Comparison of chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay, indirect immunofluorescence assay, linear immunoassay and multiple microbead immunoassay detecting autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus

The aim of study was to detect antinuclear antibodies (ANA) using indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA), linear immunoassay (LIA), chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), multiple microbead immunoassay (MBI) and to compare these four methods in the performance of diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Serum ANA were detected in 147 SLE cases and 42 healthy controls (HCs). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and agreement, the area under the curve of four methods in diagnosing were calculated. Finally, a diagnostic model through logistic regression was constructed. The sensitivity of CMIA and IIFA in diagnosing SLE was 89.08% and 89.12%, higher than other two methods (P < .01), while highest specificity lied in CMIA (95.24%) and LIA (95.24%). The accuracy was highest in CMIA (91.01%), and lowest in LIA (83.07%). CMIA and the other three methods had good agreement, especially with LIA (κ = .798, 95% CI, 0.708-0.88). ANA-IIFA (OR = 1.016, P < .001) and anti-SSA antibodies (OR = 1.017, P = .043) were finally included in the SLE diagnostic model, with AUC value of 0.964 (95% CI, 0.936-0.991). SLE patients exhibited 14 various ANA patterns, especially AC-1, AC-4, and AC-5. Antibodies against SSA and dsDNA were mostly seen with AC-1 and AC-4 patterns, while antibodies against RNP, Sm, SSA, dsDNA, nucleosome and PO were most frequently observed with AC-5 pattern in SLE. CMIA method is a reliable screening test for detections of antibodies related to SLE. Using ANA-IIFA and anti-SSA antibodies by CMIA can discriminate SLE patients from HCs effectively.

Antinuclear Antibody Tests

The presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), which include autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), in the sera of patients with connective tissue diseases provides useful immunologic and pathophysiologic insight into the nature of their disease. This article discusses the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for detecting and quantitating the presence of ANA: indirect immunofluorescence assay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and multiplex bead technology, which serve as useful screening tests. We also review testing for autoantibodies to ENAs, which are often helpful to confirm the diagnosis of a specific connective tissue disease.

A comparison of a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay versus indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

The aim was to compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) for initial screening of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and to evaluate whether combining IIF with FEIA adds value. A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify fully paired, cross-sectional or case-control studies on ANA screening of CTD reporting results for IIF and FEIA. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. The reference standard was assessed against established classification criteria. The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate and mixed-effects models to allow test results to vary within and across studies. Eighteen studies of good to fair quality were included in the review. IIF had a higher sensitivity than FEIA [cut-off 1:160, 7 studies, 3251 patients, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) versus 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80); cut-off 1:80, 7 studies, 12,311 patients, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) versus 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84)] but lower specificity [1:160, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95); 1:80, 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96)]. A double-positive test had a higher likelihood ratio (LR) for CTD (26.2 (95% CI 23.0-29.9)) than a single positive test (14.4 (95% CI 13.1-15.9) FEIA+, 5.1 (95% CI 4.8-5.4) IIF+). A double-negative test result had more clinical value for ruling out CTD than a single negative test (LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12-0.18) versus 0.21 (95% CI 0.18-0.25) IIF; 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.37) FEIA-). A FEIA+/IIF- discordant result had a higher LR than an IIF+/FEIA- discordant result (LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.7-3.4) versus 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7)). Because of the comparatively higher specificity of FEIA and higher sensitivity of IIF, the combination of FEIA and IIF increases the diagnostic value. Clinicians should be acquainted with the clinical presentation of CTD and aware of the advantages and disadvantages of FEIA and IIF to avoid misinterpretation.