Clinical performance evaluation of a novel, automated chemiluminescent immunoassay, QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus

Adopting the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) classification for reporting: the experience of Italian clinical laboratories

The indirect immunofluorescence assay on HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA) is still considered the reference method to detect anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) because of its high sensitivity and represents a relevant tool for the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. During the last decade, the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) initiative promoted harmonization and understanding of HEp-2 IFA staining pattern nomenclature, as well as promoting their use in patient care by providing interpretation for HEp-2 IFA test results. In conjunction with a nationwide survey on the evolution of autoantibody diagnostics in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, we focused on the adherence of the Italian laboratories to the ICAP nomenclature analyzing its lights and shadows. The recent ICAP-oriented report, largely used today among Italian laboratories, also represents a further step in harmonizing and improving communication with the clinicians, adding value to laboratory findings and helping with critical clinical decisions.

Detection of antinuclear antibodies: recommendations from EFLM, EASI and ICAP

OBJECTIVES

Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are important for the diagnosis of various autoimmune diseases. ANA are usually detected by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA). There are many variables influencing HEp-2 IFA results, such as subjective visual reading, serum screening dilution, substrate manufacturing, microscope components and conjugate. Newer developments on ANA testing that offer novel features adopted by some clinical laboratories include automated computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems and solid phase assays (SPA).

METHODS

A group of experts reviewed current literature and established recommendations on methodological aspects of ANA testing. This process was supported by a two round Delphi exercise. International expert groups that participated in this initiative included (i) the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "Autoimmunity Testing"; (ii) the European Autoimmune Standardization Initiative (EASI); and (iii) the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP).

RESULTS

In total, 35 recommendations/statements related to (i) ANA testing and reporting by HEp-2 IFA; (ii) HEp-2 IFA methodological aspects including substrate/conjugate selection and the application of CAD systems; (iii) quality assurance; (iv) HEp-2 IFA validation/verification approaches and (v) SPA were formulated. Globally, 95% of all submitted scores in the final Delphi round were above 6 (moderately agree, agree or strongly agree) and 85% above 7 (agree and strongly agree), indicating strong international support for the proposed recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are an important step to achieve high quality ANA testing.

False positive anti-Topoisomerase I (Scl-70) antibody results in clinical practice: A case series from a scleroderma referral center

PURPOSE

To determine if some patients who tested positive for anti-Scl-70 antibody in clinical practice, but did not have classifiable systemic sclerosis, were negative for anti-Scl-70 antibody by the more specific immunodiffusion method of testing.

METHODS

Patients evaluated by a rheumatologist at a Scleroderma referral center who had tested positive for anti-Scl-70 antibody prior to referral, but did not have classifiable SSc based on clinical criteria, were invited to undergo testing for anti-Scl-70 antibody by immunodiffusion. Patient demographics and clinical features were recorded at the time of their evaluation, and diagnostic testing results were reviewed using the medical records.

RESULTS

52 patients were enrolled over an 8-year period, with 48 (92.3%) testing negative and 4 (7.7%) testing positive for anti-Scl-70 antibody by immunodiffusion. Of the 48 patients who tested negative, 18 (37.5%) tested negative for ANA by indirect immunofluorescence, 33 (68.8%) did not have Raynaud's phenomenon, and 43 (89.6%) had ≤1 clinical criteria items based on the 2013 ACR/EULAR SSc classification criteria. Nevertheless, 21 (43.8%) patients who were negative for anti-Scl-70 antibody by immunodiffusion had undergone a chest CT and 14 (29.2%) had undergone an echocardiogram. A total of 23 patients had at least one follow up clinic visit. 3 out of 4 patients who were positive for anti-Scl-70 antibody by immunodiffusion, but none of the 19 patients who tested negative by immunodiffusion, developed sufficient criteria during follow up to be classified as SSc.

CONCLUSION

Assays for anti-Scl-70 antibody in commercial laboratories that are commonly utilized in clinical practice can produce false positive results. These results can lead to angst for patients, as well as unnecessary referrals and diagnostic evaluations.

An indirect comparison of automated indirect immunofluorescence vs automated solid-phase immunoassays for antinuclear antibody detection: A meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison of diagnostic test accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of automated indirect immunofluorescence (automated-IIF) and fully automated solid-phase immunoassays (solid-phase assays), compared with gold standard conventional manual indirect immunofluorescence (manual-IIF) for antinuclear antibody (ANA) detection.

METHODS

Indirect meta-comparison was performed using prospective studies reporting comparative data between automated-IIF and fully automated solid-phase assays individually to conventional manual-IIF. Diagnostic tests regarding different automated solid-phase assays and automated-IIF for ANA detection were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG electronic databases from their inception to January 2022. Assessment of the quality of the studies was undertaken using a second version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The investigated diagnostic indices including pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of automated-IIF and solid-phase assays, respectively. Relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) was calculated to indirectly compare the diagnostic accuracy of automated-IIF and solid-phase assays. To visualize results, we provide forest plots showing the RDOR with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the 2 methods against the "gold standard" manual-IIF by R software. Deeks' funnel was used to investigate the publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies involving 6111 subjects were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled PLR, pooled NLR, pooled DOR and the AUC were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84-0.86), 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.84), 14.22 (95% CI 8.55-23.65), 0.06 (95% CI 0.03-0.12), 287.0 (95% CI 124.30-662.68) and 0.983 for automated-IIF respectively, and as for solid-phase assays those were 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.75), 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.89), 5.66 (95% CI 3.33-9.62), 0.30 (95% CI 0.20-0.47), 19.14 (95% CI 8.00-45.79) and 0.894. The results of indirect comparison indicated that automated-IIF had statistically significant higher accuracy for the detection of ANA.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis and indirect comparison suggest that automated-IIF should be recommended as an alternative assay for ANA screening under the condition of increased demand for ANA testing in clinical immunology laboratories.

Analytical and clinical performance of different platforms simultaneously detecting 15 antinuclear antibodies

Background

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are invaluable biomarkers for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases (AIDs). This study aims to compare the performances of line immunoassay (LIA), multiplex bead‐based flow fluorescent immunoassay (MBFFI), and magnetic bar code immunofluorescence assay (MBC‐IF) to detect ANA‐Profile‐15S.

Methods

In total, 184 samples from AID patients and 50 healthy controls (HCs) were collected. Fifteen ANAs (anti‐dsDNA, nucleosome, histone, Sm, PCNA, ribosomal‐P, SS‐A/Ro52, SS‐A/Ro60, SS‐B/La, centromere B [CENP‐B], Scl‐70, U1‐snRNP, AMA‐M2, Jo‐1, and Pm/Scl) were subjected to parallel detection by the LIA, MBFFI, and MBC‐IF. The consistency between assays was analyzed. The discrepant results were further examined by chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA).

Results

Anti‐SS‐A/Ro52 and SS‐A/Ro60 autoantibodies were the most common autoantibodies in ANA positive‐profiles, and were detected with equal efficiency by the LIA, MBFFI, and MBC‐IF (p = 0.101 and p = 0.732, respectively). The three assays showed excellent agreement (consistency range: 66.5%–97.5%), and total consistency was 85.8%. The MBFFI and MBC‐IF assays were in good agreement in terms of ANA‐Profile‐15S determination; the kappa coefficient ranged from 0.59 to 0.95, except for the PCNA and PM‐Scl. Of the 262 re‐assessed divergent results, 124 (47.33%) were positive on CLIA; the various autoantibodies exhibited variable patterns. More importantly, the ANA‐Profile‐15S results of the MBFFI and MBC‐IF accurately identified patients with AID; the area under the curves ranged from 0.642 to 0.919.

Conclusions

The novel MBFFI and MBC‐IF assay performed well in detecting ANA‐Profile‐15S. The application of MBFFI and MBC‐IF play important roles in laboratory diagnosis of AIDs.

The Effect of Anti-Scl-70 Antibody Determination Method on Its Predictive Significance for Interstitial Lung Disease Progression in Systemic Sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the predictive significance of anti-Scl-70 (anti-topoisomerase I) antibodies, as determined by three different methods, for decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) within the first year of follow-up in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related interstitial lung disease (ILD).

METHODS

Patients in the Genetics Versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study cohort who had ILD (verified by imaging) and available FVC% at enrollment, plus 12 to 18 months thereafter, were examined. All patients had a disease duration of 5 years or less at enrollment. The annualized percentage change in FVC% at 1 year follow-up was the outcome variable. Anti-Scl-70 antibodies were determined by passive immunodiffusion (ID) against calf thymus extract, chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA), and line blot immunoassay (LIA).

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients with a mean disease duration of 2.36 years were included. Anti-Scl-70 antibodies by ID predicted a faster rate of FVC% decline (b = -0.06, P = 0.04). None of the other clinical or serological variables significantly predicted ILD progression. Interestingly, anti-Scl-70 antibodies as determined by CIA and LIA were not significant predictors of FVC decline (P = 0.26 and 0.64, respectively). The observed level of agreement between ID and LIA was moderate (κ = 0.568), whereas it was good between ID and CIA (κ = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Anti-Scl-70 antibodies determined by ID predicted faster FVC decline in patients with SSc-related ILD. Notably, both CIA and LIA for the same antibody did not predict rate of FVC decline at their current cutoffs of positivity. The discrepancy observed between anti-Scl-70 antibody assays can have relevant implications for clinical care and trial enrichment strategies in SSc-ILD.

The Past, Present, and Future in Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA)

Autoantibodies are a hallmark of autoimmunity and, specifically, antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are the most relevant autoantibodies present in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Over the years, different methods from LE cell to HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), solid-phase assays (SPAs), and finally multianalyte technologies have been developed to study ANA-associated SARDs. All of them provide complementary information that is important to provide the most clinically valuable information. The identification of new biomarkers together with multianalyte platforms will help close the so-called "seronegative gap" and to correctly classify and diagnose patients with SARDs. Finally, artificial intelligence and machine learning is an area still to be exploited but in a next future will help to extract patterns within patient data, and exploit these patterns to predict patient outcomes for improved clinical management.

Clinical Performance of Two Automated Immunoassays, EliA CTD Screen and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus, for Antinuclear Antibody Screening

Background

Recently, two fully automated immunoassays for antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening were introduced EliA CTD Screen (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany) and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, USA). We evaluated their clinical performance in comparison with the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) and analyzed samples with discrepant results.

Methods

In total, 406 serum samples (206 from patients undergoing routine checkups and 200 from rheumatology clinic patients) were assayed using EliA, QUANTA Flash, and IIFA. We evaluated assay concordance and agreement and confirmed the presence of anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) antibodies in samples with discrepant automated immunoassay and IIFA results. Additionally, we compared the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD) and adjusted the cut-off values.

Results

In rheumatology clinic samples, the concordance and agreement were 91.5% and strong between EliA and QUANTA Flash, 79.0% and weak between EliA and IIFA, and 80.5% and moderate between QUANTA Flash and IIFA, respectively. In automated immunoassay-positive, IIFA-negative samples (N=15), all anti-ENA antibodies detected (6/15) were anti-Sjögren’s syndrome antigen A/Ro (Ro60) antibodies. The automated immunoassays and IIFA showed high accuracy for diagnosing AARD, and adjusted cut-off values improved their sensitivities (EliA with 0.56 ratio, 82.9% sensitivity; QUANTA Flash with 9.7 chemiluminescent units, 87.8% sensitivity).

Conclusions

The two automated immunoassays showed reliable performance compared with IIFA and can be efficiently used with the IIFA in clinical immunology laboratories. Clinical cut-off values can be adjusted according to the workflow in each laboratory.

Absence of Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Antibodies in 200 Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus With or Without Lupus Nephritis: Results of the GOODLUPUS Study

Introduction

Anti-glomerular basement membrane (GBM) antibodies are pathogenic antibodies first detected in renal-limited anti-GBM disease and in Goodpasture disease, the latter characterized by rapidly progressive crescentic glomerulonephritis combined with intra-alveolar hemorrhage. Studies have suggested that anti-GBM antibody positivity may be of interest in lupus nephritis (LN). Moreover, severe anti-GBM vasculitis cases in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been described in the literature, but few studies have assessed the incidence of anti-GBM antibodies in SLE patients.

Objective

The main study objective was to determine if positive anti-GBM antibodies were present in the serum of SLE patients with or without proliferative renal damage and compared to a healthy control group.

Methodology

This retrospective study was performed on SLE patients’ sera from a Franco-German European biobank, developed between 2011 and 2014, from 17 hospital centers in the Haut-Rhin region. Patients were selected according to their renal involvement, and matched by age and gender. The serum from healthy voluntary blood donors was also tested. Anti-GBM were screened by fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), and then by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) in case of low reactivity detection (titer >6 U/ml).

Results

The cohort was composed of 100 SLE patients with proliferative LN (27% with class III, 67% with class IV, and 6% with class V), compared to 100 SLE patients without LN and 100 controls. Patients were mostly Caucasian and met the ACR 1997 criteria and/or the SLICC 2012 criteria. Among the 300 tested sera, no significant levels of anti-GBM antibodies were detected (>10 U/ml) by the automated technique, three sera were found “ambivalent” (>7 U/ml): one in the SLE with LN group and two in the SLE without LN group. Subsequent IIF assays did not detect anti-GBM antibodies.

Conclusion

Anti-GBM antibodies were not detected in the serum of Caucasian patients with SLE, even in case of renal involvement, a situation favoring the antigenic exposure of glomerular basement membranes. Our results reaffirm the central role of anti-GBM antibodies as a specific diagnostic biomarker for Goodpasture vasculitis and therefore confirm that anti-GBM antibody must not be carried out in patients with SLE (with or without LN) in the absence of disease-suggestive symptoms.

Understanding and interpreting antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are valuable laboratory markers to screen for and support the diagnosis of various rheumatic diseases (known as ANA-associated rheumatic diseases). The importance of ANA testing has been reinforced by the inclusion of ANA positivity as an entry criterion in the 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria. In addition, specific ANAs (such as antibodies to Sm, double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), SSA/Ro60, U1RNP, topoisomerase I, centromere protein B (CENPB), RNA polymerase III and Jo1) are included in classification criteria for other rheumatic diseases. A number of techniques are available for detecting antibodies to a selection of clinically relevant antigens (such as indirect immunofluorescence and solid phase assays). In this Review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of these techniques, as well as the clinical relevance of the differences between the techniques, to provide guidance in understanding and interpreting ANA test results. Such understanding not only necessitates insight into the sensitivity and specificity of each assay, but also into the importance of the disease context and antibody level. We also highlight the value of titre-specific information (such as likelihood ratios).

A new diagnostic algorithm for pattern-oriented autoantibody testing according to the ICAP nomenclature: A pilot study

The commercial tests currently available as second-level tests to detect ANA sub-specificities are generally used independently from the ANA immunofluorescence (IIF) pattern. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the use of a customizable pattern-oriented antigenic panel by immunoblot (IB) using the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) classification scheme, in order to introduce a novel and updated autoimmune diagnostic flowchart. 710 sera referred for routine ANA testing were selected on the basis of the ANA pattern according to the ICAP nomenclature (nuclear speckled AC-2,4,5; nucleolar AC-8,9,10,29; cytoplasmic speckled AC-18,19,20) and on an IIF titer ≥1:320. They were then assayed by three experimental IB assays using a panel of selected antigens. ICAP-oriented IB detected 515 antibody reactivities vs. 457 of traditional anti-ENA in the nuclear speckled pattern group, 108 vs. 28 in the nucleolar pattern group, and 43 vs. 34 in the cytoplasmic speckled pattern. This pilot study may lead the way for a new approach introducing an ICAP pattern-oriented follow up testing as a valid alternative to the existing standard panels, thus enabling more patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease to be accurately diagnosed.

A hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to provide direct comparisons of immunoassays vs. indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases

OBJECTIVES

To compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs).

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified cross-sectional or case-control studies reporting test accuracy data for IIF and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or multiplex immunoassay (MIA). The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect models with random-effects by test.

RESULTS

Direct comparisons of IIF with ELISA showed that both tests had good sensitivity (five studies, 2321 patients: ELISA: 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5%, 95.5%] vs. IIF at a cut-off of 1:80: 86.8% [95% CI: 81.8%, 90.6%]; p = 0.4) but low specificity, with considerable variance across assays (ELISA: 56.9% [95% CI: 40.9%, 71.5%] vs. IIF 1:80: 68.0% [95% CI: 39.5%, 87.4%]; p = 0.5). FEIA sensitivity was lower than IIF sensitivity (1:80: p = 0.005; 1:160: p = 0.051); however, FEIA specificity was higher (seven studies, n = 12,311, FEIA 93.6% [95% CI: 89.9%, 96.0%] vs. IIF 1:80 72.4% [95% CI: 62.2%, 80.7%]; p < 0.001; seven studies, n = 3251, FEIA 93.5% [95% CI: 91.1%, 95.3%] vs. IIF 1:160 81.1% [95% CI: 73.4%, 86.9%]; p < 0.0001). CLIA sensitivity was similar to IIF (1:80) with higher specificity (four studies, n = 1981: sensitivity 85.9% [95% CI: 64.7%, 95.3%]; p = 0.86; specificity 86.1% [95% CI: 78.3%, 91.4%]). More data are needed to make firm inferences for CLIA vs. IIF given the wide prediction region. There were too few studies for the meta-analysis of MIA vs. IIF (MIA sensitivity range 73.7%-86%; specificity 53%-91%).

CONCLUSIONS

FEIA and CLIA have good specificity compared to IIF. A positive FEIA or CLIA test is useful to support the diagnosis of a CTD. A negative IIF test is useful to exclude a CTD.

Diagnostic laboratory tests for systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: unmet needs towards harmonization

Autoantibodies are helpful tools not only for the diagnosis and the classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) but also for sub-grouping patients and/or for monitoring disease activity or specific tissue/organ damage. Consequently, the role of the diagnostic laboratory in the management of SARD is becoming more and more important. The advent of new techniques raised the need of updating and harmonizing our use/interpretation of the assays. We discuss in this opinion paper some of these issues. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) was originally suggested as the reference technique for anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) detection as previous solid phase assays (SPA) displayed lower sensitivity. The new available SPA are now offering better results and can represent alternative or even complementary diagnostic tools for ANA detection. The improved sensitivity of SPA technology is also changing our interpretation of the results for other types of autoantibody assays, but we need updating their calibration and new reference materials are going to be obtained in order to harmonize the assays. There is growing evidence that the identification of autoantibody combinations or profiles is helpful in improving diagnosis, patients’ subgrouping and predictivity for disease evolution in the field of SARD. We report some explanatory examples to support the idea to make the use of these autoantibody profiles more and more popular. The technological evolution of the autoimmune assays is going to change our routine diagnostic laboratory tests for SARD and validation of new algorithms is needed in order to harmonize our approach to the issue.

Diagnostic utility of automated indirect immunofluorescence compared to manual indirect immunofluorescence for anti-nuclear antibodies in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review and compare the analytical and clinical performance of automated indirect immunofluorescence (AIIF) and manual indirect immunofluorescence (MIIF) as anti-nuclear antibody screening assays for patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs), such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published before August 2017. A bivariate random effects model was used to calculate the summary diagnostic values.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies involving 6913 positive and 1818 negative samples of MIIF, as well as 524 combined SRD, 132 SLE, and 104 SSc patients, and 520 controls were available for meta-analysis. The summary positive concordance (PC) of qualitative result between AIIF and MIIF was 93.7%, whereas PCs of total pattern (68.5%; homogeneous, 52.3%; speckled, 56.5%; nucleolar, 52.7%; centromere, 51.4%; nuclear dot, 11.7%) and titer (77.8%) exhibited significantly lower values. The summary clinical sensitivities of AIIF vs. MIIF were 84.7% vs 78.2% for combined SRDs, 95.5% vs. 93.9% for SLE, and 86.5% vs. 83.7% for SSc, respectively. Meanwhile, the summary specificities of AIIF vs. MIIF were 75.6% vs. 79.6% for combined SRDs, 74.2% vs. 83.3% for SLE, and 74.2% vs. 83.3% for SSc, respectively. Although the differences in sensitivity and specificity between AIIF and MIIF were not significant in most subgroups, the summary specificity of SLE and SSc showed statistically significant changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic meta-analysis demonstrates that AIIF is comparable to MIIF in distinguishing between the positive and negative results, and screening SRDs based on clinical sensitivities and standardization. However, improvements in the pattern and titer recognition and clinical specificities are necessary.

Solid phase assays versus automated indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antinuclear antibodies

Solid phase assays (SPAs) and automated microscope systems are increasingly used to screen for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of three automated ANA screening assays; NOVA Lite HEp-2 using NOVA View® (NV, Inova Diagnostics), an automated indirect immunofluorescence method, EliA™ CTD Screen (Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay, FEIA; Thermo Fisher) and QUANTA Flash® CTD Screen Plus (Chemiluminescence immunoassay, CIA; Inova Diagnostics). The assays were performed on 480 diagnostic samples from patients with an ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD; systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren's syndrome, systemic sclerosis, inflammatory myopathy, mixed connective tissue disease) and on 767 samples from diseased and healthy controls. Using cut-offs proposed by the manufacturers, the sensitivity was 95%, 80.5% and 86% for NV, FEIA and CIA, respectively. The corresponding specificity was 61% (NV), 97.5% (FEIA) and 88% (CIA). The sensitivity associated with a specificity of ~95% was 79%, 82% and 78% for NV, FEIA, and CIA, respectively. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis revealed no differences in area under the curve (AUC) between the 3 assays when all diseases were grouped. For Sjögren's syndrome, the AUC was higher for SPAs than for NV, whereas for systemic sclerosis, the AUC was higher for NV than for CIA. For all assays, the likelihood ratio for AARD increased with increasing antibody levels and for double positivity of NV with SPA. In conclusion, the performance of automated SPA and IIF was assay- and disease-dependent. Taking into account antibody levels and combining IIF with SPA adds value.

Analytical and clinical comparison of two fully automated immunoassay systems for the detection of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens

BACKGROUND

Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) is increasingly substituted by fully automated solid phase immunoassays. This study evaluated the performance of an automated chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) and compared their performance to that of IIFA.

METHODS

The study included an unselected prospective study population suspected of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease. ANA were measured by IIFA, while in parallel sera were tested by CIA QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus on the BIO-FLASH® and FEIA EliA CTD Screen on the Phadia® 250 system. As validation, retrospective cohorts of patients with ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD) and healthy controls were tested.

RESULTS

Prospectively, sensitivity of IIFA, CIA and FEIA was 90%, 99% and 92%, respectively. Specificity was 76%, 76% and 84%, respectively. Total percent agreements between the three methods were 75.2% (IIFA vs. CIA), 79.2% (IIFA vs. FEIA) and 85.4% (FEIA vs. CIA). The AUC values were 0.95 for CIA and 0.93 for FEIA and did not significantly differ. Retrospectively in individual AARD cohorts, similar results were obtained comparing both CTD screens.

CONCLUSIONS

Both FEIA and CIA CTD screen significantly outperformed IIFA, with a higher specificity for FEIA and higher sensitivity for CIA. Based on ROC analysis, major contributor to the difference between the two solid phase immunoassays was the cut-off.

Chemiluminescent immunoassay technology: what does it change in autoantibody detection?

Diagnostic technology is rapidly evolving, and over the last decade, substantial progress has been made even for the identification of antibodies, increasingly approaching this type of diagnostic to that of automated clinical chemistry laboratory. In this review, we describe the analytical and diagnostic characteristics of chemiluminescence technology in its strength and in its applicability for a more rapid and accurate diagnosis of autoimmune diseases. The wide dynamic range, greater than that of immunoenzymatic methods, the high sensitivity and specificity of the results expressed in quantitative form, the high degree of automation and the clinical implications related to the reduction in the turnaround time, and the ability to run a large number of antibody tests (even of different isotypes), directed towards large antigenic panels in random access mode, make this technology the most advanced in the clinical laboratory, with enormous repercussions on the workflow and on the autoimmunology laboratory organisation. Further improvements are expected in the coming years with the development of new analytical platforms such as the flow-injection chemiluminescent immunoassay, the two-dimensional resolution for chemiluminescence multiplex immunoassay and the magnetic nanoparticles chemiluminescence immunoassay, which will likely result in additional increases in the clinical efficacy of antibody tests.

Development and multi-center evaluation of a novel immunoadsorption method for anti-DFS70 antibodies

OBJECTIVE

Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) represent a hallmark in the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARD). However, anti-DFS70 antibodies are present in a higher portion of the healthy individuals (HI) than in patients with AARD. Consequently, we developed a novel, highly specific indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) method that blocks anti-DFS70 antibodies from binding to HEp-2 cells and to evaluate the method in a multi-center study.

METHODS

A total of 18 samples from systemic lupus erythematosus patients (SLE, n = 7) and HI (n = 11) were used for the initial development of the immunoadsorption method. For the multi-center evaluation, samples with a dense fine speckled (DFS) pattern (n = 99) were collected at three different sites based on their established IIF screening procedure at the respective laboratories. Additionally, four characterized samples with established clinically relevant IIF patterns (centromere, nucleolar, speckled, homogeneous) were blended in five different ratios (10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%) with a sample positive for anti-DFS70 antibodies, which by itself showed a dense fine speckled (DFS) IIF pattern. All samples were tested by IIF with NOVA Lite HEp-2 ANA and NOVA Lite HEp-2 Select on the NOVA View® instrument, and also tested by QUANTA Flash DFS70 chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) for confirmation of anti-DFS70 antibodies (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA).

RESULTS

For the development of the immunoadsorption method, only 1/7 ANA-positive samples from SLE patients, but 8/10 ANA-positive samples from healthy individuals turned negative using the immunoadsorption. Subsequently, 73/99 (73.7%) of the DFS pattern samples were positive by CIA for anti-DFS70 antibodies showing a strong quantitative Spearman's correlation (rho = 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39-0.71, p < 0.0001)) between light intensity units (LIU) measured by NOVA View and CIA. Intensities measured with NOVA Lite HEp-2 and NOVA Lite HEp-2 Select demonstrated significantly lower intensity values after inhibition with DFS70 antigen (p < 0.0001). When samples were processed to mimic samples with mixed patterns (DFS + clinically relevant pattern), the new immunoadsorption method demonstrated that all clinically relevant patterns remained unchanged whereas the LIUs from NOVA View analysis significantly decreased after inhibition (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The data showed that the NOVA Lite HEp-2 Select kit effectively inhibits anti-DFS70 antibody binding to its cellular target antigen.

International multi-center evaluation of a novel chemiluminescence assay for the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies

OBJECTIVE

Anti-double stranded desoxyribonucleic acid (anti-dsDNA) antibodies are considered fairly specific for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their quantification is useful for the clinical management of SLE patients. We assessed the diagnostic performance of the QUANTA Flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) in comparison to an ELISA, using patients from five participating countries. The main focus was to evaluate the correlation between anti-dsDNA antibody results from the CIA and global SLE disease activity, as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1431 samples (SLE, n = 843; disease controls, n = 588) from five countries (Canada, USA, Portugal, Sweden and Spain) were tested with QUANTA Flash dsDNA (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA). Data obtained with the QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA (Inova Diagnostics) were available for samples from three sites (Canada, USA and Sweden, n = 566). The SLEDAI-2K scores were available for 805 SLE patients and a cut-off of > 4 was used to define active disease.

RESULTS

QUANTA Flash dsDNA had a sensitivity of 54.3% for the diagnosis of SLE, combined with 89.8% specificity. Anti-dsDNA antibody levels were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in active SLE (SLEDAI-2K > 4; n = 232; median value 83.0 IU/mL) versus the inactive patients (n = 573; median value 22.3 IU/mL), and the SLEDAI-2K scoring correlated with their dsDNA antibody levels (Spearman's rho = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Similar but less pronounced findings were also found for the ELISA, in relation to disease activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The QUANTA Flash dsDNA assay showed good clinical performance in a large international multi-center study. Additionally, the strong correlation between anti-dsDNA antibody results and SLEDAI-2K scores supported the potential utility of QUANTA Flash dsDNA for monitoring disease activity.

Automated antinuclear immunofluorescence antibody analysis is a reliable approach in routine clinical laboratories

Background:

Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) assays are recommended as the gold standard method for the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). This study aimed to investigate the reliability of an automated system.

Methods:

We compared 3745 serum samples using NOVA View archived images with manual analysis via microscopy. A custom cutoff value was established to distinguish ANA titers and was validated in two clinical laboratories. The automatic ANA pattern recognition system was evaluated, and all ANA-positive sera were subjected to two commercial ANA IIF kits to compare the consistency of the pattern interpretation results. For inconsistent patterns, a third ANA IIF testing kit was utilized.

Results:

Agreement of the interpretation of the ANA IIF test using the platform of NOVA View and manual microscopy was 96.9%. The local cutoff value to discriminate ANA titers in four main ANA patterns was calculated based on 1390 serum samples. In our laboratory, the titer prediction accuracy was superior to the preset cutoff in NOVA View (p<0.01); the performance was similar in another laboratory (p=0.11). The automatic pattern recognition accuracies of speckled, homogeneous, centromere, nucleolar and nuclear dot patterns were 62.7%, 57.4%, 92.6%, 30.5% and 27.3%, respectively. The consistency of the pattern interpretation results between INOVA and MBL kits was 95.3%.

Conclusions:

It is necessary to establish a custom value-added ANA report. However, confirmation of the digital immunofluorescence images by expert technicians was essential, and suspect results of an ANA pattern should be reconfirmed by another commercial ANA IIF kit to achieve more reliable results.

Evaluation of three fully automated immunoassay systems for detection of IgA anti-beta 2-glycoprotein I antibodies

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, we have been witnessing increased clinical interest in the determination of IgA anti-beta 2-glycoprotein I (aB2GPI) antibodies as well as increased demand for this test. Some ELISA-based diagnostic systems for IgA aB2GPI antibodies detection are suboptimal to detect it. The aim of our study was to determine whether the diagnostic yield of modern detection systems based on automatic platforms to measure IgA aB2GPI is equivalent to that of the well-optimized ELISA-based assays.

METHODS

In total, 130 patients were analyzed for IgA aB2GPI by three fully automated immunoassays using an ELISA-based assay as reference. The three systems were also analyzed for IgG aB2GPI with 58 patients.

RESULTS

System 1 was able to detect IgA aB2GPI with good sensitivity and kappa index (99% and 0.72, respectively). The other two systems had also poor sensitivity (20% and 15%) and kappa index (0.10 and 0.07), respectively. On the other hand, kappa index for IgG aB2GPI was >0.89 in the three systems.

CONCLUSION

Some analytical methods to detect IgA aB2GPI are suboptimal as well as some ELISA-based diagnostic systems. It is important that the scientific community work to standardize analytical methods to determine IgA aB2GPI antibodies.

Detection of autoantibodies using chemiluminescence technologies

Context: Although autoantibody detection methods such as indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have been available for many years and are still in use the innovation of fast, fully automated instruments using chemiluminescence technology in recent years has led to rapid adoption in autoimmune disease diagnostics. In 2009, BIO-FLASH, a fully automated, random access chemiluminescent analyzer, was introduced, proceeded by the development of the QUANTA Flash chemiluminescent immunoassays (CIA) for autoimmune diagnostics.

Objective: To summarize the evolution of CIAs for the detection of autoantibodies and to review their performance characteristics.

Methods: Pubmed was screened for publications evaluating novel QUANTA Flash assays and how they compare to traditional methods for the detection of autoantibodies. In addition, comparative studies presented at scientific meetings were summarized.

Results: Several studies were identified that compared the novel CIAs with conventional methods for autoantibody detection. The agreements ranged from moderate to excellent depending on the assay. The studies show how the CIA technology has enhanced the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of many autoantibody assays supporting both diagnosis and follow-up testing.

Conclusion: CIA has started to improve the diagnostic testing of autoantibodies as an aid in the diagnosis of a broad range of autoimmune diseases.