Automation, consolidation, and integration in autoimmune diagnostics

Evaluation of a New Multiparametric Microdot Array-Based Immunoassay Panel for Systemic Autoimmune Disease Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The early reliable detection and quantification of autoantibodies play an important role in autoimmune disease diagnosis and in disease-course monitoring. New technologies, such as the multiplexed determination of autoantibodies, have recently been introduced and are being adopted more frequently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of a new microdot array-based multiparametric assay (ZENIT AMiDot CTD panel, A. Menarini Diagnostics, Firenze, Italy) to correctly classify patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) and compare it to a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) for the detection of anti-ENAs.

METHODS

The study included 69 consecutive samples from patients with ARDs that were analyzed using two different methods (FEIA and AMiDot) to detect anti-CENP B and six anti-ENA antibodies: anti-Scl-70, anti-SSB/La, anti-Jo-1, anti-U1-RNP, anti-Ro52, and anti-Ro60. The control group sera came from sixty-eight blood donors. Tests were run on the automated slide processor ZENIT FLOW, and then the slides were imaged and analyzed using ZENIT fast.

RESULTS

Since the samples were selected for at least one antibody positivity with an ARD diagnosis, we did not calculate clinical sensitivity but only specificity, which was 98.53%, ranging from 90% for anti-SSB/La antibodies to 100% for anti-CENP B ones. Mean agreement among the methods assessed by Cohen's kappa was 0.816 ± 0.240.

CONCLUSIONS

The assay demonstrated good clinical performance and may be considered a valuable aid in detecting ARD patients, offering an alternative to methods such as FEIA which are largely in use today.

ANA-specific antibodies, ANA patterns, anti-ds-DNA results, and clinical diagnosis: a laboratory and clinical audit

The diagnosis of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAID) is challenging, due to overlapping features with other non-immune disorders. Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA)/anti-cellular antibodies are the sensitive screening tests but anti-double-stranded-deoxyribonucleic acid-antibody (anti-ds-DNA) and ANA-specific antibodies are specific for SAID. We aimed to look at ANA-specific antibodies in our patients and correlated them with ANA patterns, anti-ds-DNA, and clinical diagnosis for proper interpretation and better patient management cost-effectively. A retrospective data analysis of 641 patients was done (1st of February 2019 to 31st of July 2021) who were tested for ANA-specific antibodies at the Immunology Department of Indus Hospital and Health Network. ANA and anti-ds-DNA results and clinical diagnosis were also analyzed for ANA-specific antibody-positive patients. Descriptive data were presented in mean ± standard deviation and frequency percentages whereas inferential data were analyzed with a chi-square test for association between ANA-specific antibodies status, ANA, anti-ds-DNA, and clinical features. ANA-specific antibodies test revealed positivity for at least one autoantibody in 245 (38.2%) patients. Of these, ANA was tested in 206 patients reactive for ANA-specific antibodies and found positive in 195 (95%) as compared to negative (< 0.001). Speckled and homogenous were predominant ANA patterns in ANA-specific antibody-positives (56% and 42% respectively). Multiple ANA patterns were found in 18 patients most commonly with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and mixed connective tissue disorder (MCTD). Anti-SSA were the most common ANA-specific antibodies (50%) and were mostly found in sera with speckled (61/97) and homogenous (38/97) patterns and associated mostly with SLE (48%) and Sjogren's syndrome (86%). Among ANA-negative patients, anti-SSA were the most common antibodies (n = 5). Anti-ds-DNA was found in 66% of SLE patients along with another ANA-specific antibody. This study showed that testing for ANA-specific antibodies cannot be gated on ANA patterns. Also, there is a redundancy of these antibodies with various clinical diagnoses. Moreover, they are useful in making a diagnosis in ANA-negative patients as well with clinical suspicion.

CRISPR-Cas-mediated diagnostics

An ideal molecular diagnostic method should be sensitive, specific, low cost, rapid, portable, and easy to operate. Traditional nucleic acid detection methods based mainly on PCR technology have not only high sensitivity and specificity, but also some limitations, such as the need for expensive equipment and skilled technicians, being both time and labor intensive, and difficult to implement in some regions. However, with the continuous development of CRISPR-Cas technology and its application in molecular diagnosis, new approaches have been used for the construction of molecular diagnostic systems. In this review, we discuss recent advances in CRISPR-based molecular diagnostic technologies and highlight the revolution they bring to the field of molecular diagnostics.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) in Cardiovascular Complications of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA): What Is New?

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is among the most prevalent and impactful rheumatologic chronic autoimmune diseases (AIDs) worldwide. Within a framework that recognizes both immunological activation and inflammatory pathways, the exact cause of RA remains unclear. It seems however, that RA is initiated by a combination between genetic susceptibility, and environmental triggers, which result in an auto-perpetuating process. The subsequently, systemic inflammation associated with RA is linked with a variety of extra-articular comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), resulting in increased mortality and morbidity. Hitherto, vast evidence demonstrated the key role of non-coding RNAs such as microRNAs (miRNAs) in RA, and in RA-CVD related complications. In this descriptive review, we aim to highlight the specific role of miRNAs in autoimmune processes, explicitly on their regulatory roles in the pathogenesis of RA, and its CV consequences, their main role as novel biomarkers, and their possible role as therapeutic targets.

Monoplex and multiplex immunoassays: approval, advancements, and alternatives

Immunoassays are a powerful diagnostic tool and are widely used for the quantification of proteins and biomolecules in medical diagnosis and research. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most commonly used immunoassay format and allows the detection of biomarkers at a very low concentration. The diagnostic platforms such as enzyme immunoassay (EIA), chemiluminescence (CL) assay, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), flow cytometry (FC), and mass spectrometry (MS) have been used to identify molecular biomarkers. However, these diagnostic tools requiring expensive equipment, long testing time, and qualified personnel that is not always available in small local hospitals with limited resources. The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) platform was developed for rapidly obtaining laboratory results and to make urgent decisions in emergency medicine, as well as the recently introduced concept of testing at the site of care (point-of-care, POC). The simultaneous measurement of different substances from a single sample called multiplex assays have become increasingly significant for in vitro quantification of multiple analytes in a single sample, thereby minimising cost, time, and volume. In multiplex immunoassays, the ligands are immobilized either in planar format (flat surface) or on microspheres in suspension that binds to target analytes in sample. The multiplex technology has established itself in proteomic networks and pathways, validation of genomic discoveries, and in the development of clinical biomarkers. In the present review article, various types of monoplex/simplex and complex/multiplex immunoassays have been analysed that are increasingly being applied in laboratory medicine. Also, some advantages and disadvantages of these multiplex assays have also been included such as experimental animals, in vitro tests using cell lines and tissue samples, 3-dimensional modelling and bioprinting, in silico tests, organ-on-chip, and computer modelling.

Two Novel Technologies for the Detection of Anti-cardiolipin and Anti β2-Glycoprotein Antibodies in the Real Life: Chemiluminescent in Comparison to the Addressable Laser Bead Immunoassays

In the present study, we evaluated two novel technologies, the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) QUANTA Flash on BIO-FLASH (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA) and the addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) on BioPlex™ 2200 (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) for the detection of anti-cardiolipin IgG/IgM (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein IgG/IgM (aβ2GPI) antibodies. The study was performed on 134 samples from consecutive patients (59 males and 75 females, mean age 54 ± 10 years) who consulted a rheumatologist because thrombosis and/or pregnancy complications were present or another immunological disease (Sjogren's syndrome, inflammatory arthritis). Fourteen patients of the total fulfilled 25the Sydney criteria for APS and for these patients previous results of aPLs were available. Sera were tested for aCL and aβ2GPI of IgG and IgM isotypes using CIA (BIO-FLASH) and ALBIA (BioPlex™ 2200). Overall agreement between CIA and ALBIA ranged from 88.1% (aCL IgG) to 97.8% (aβ2GPI IgG). Cohen's kappa coefficient ranged from 0.53 to 0.91, implying moderate to almost perfect agreement. Almost perfect agreement was found between BioPlex™ 2200 and BIO-FLASH aβ2GPI IgG and aCL IgM with Cohen's kappa of 0.91 and 0.88, respectively. On the other hand, moderate agreement was found between BioPlex™ 2200 and BIO-FLASH aCL IgG and β2GPI IgM assays with Cohen's kappa of 0.57 and 0.53, respectively. The two novel technologies look promising and comparable but further studies with larger cohorts are needed to contribute to the better understanding of the new aPLs antibodies assays performance.

Autoantibody Profiles in Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases

A paradigmatic feature of autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) is the presence of multiple autoantibodies. The use of antibody profiles in the study of ARD therefore should be the best strategy for both diagnostic and classification purposes. To this end, systems using micronized components (protein chips or arrays), consisting of solid phase-linked autoantigens capable of simultaneously detecting many autoantibodies at the same time, are particularly suitable for testing autoantibody profiles. In the near future, extended disease-specific autoantibody profiles consisting of dozens, if not hundreds, of autoantibodies will be able to define each patient's autoantibody fingerprint and identify subclasses of patients with different prognostic characteristics and different therapeutic responses.

Challenges in the Standardization of Autoantibody Testing: a Comprehensive Review

Standardization and harmonization are complementary tools to achieve higher testing quality in laboratory medicine. Both are of great relevance and are strongly needed in autoimmune diagnostics, due to the impressive advance in basic research and technological development observed in this diagnostic field in recent years that has led to the introduction of many new tests and new analytical methods. It is, therefore, essential that this strong innovative thrust is translated into clinical practice in a coordinated way to avoid confusion and the risk of potentially harmful errors for the patient. However, while standardization of antibody assays is a very complex task, harmonization of procedures and behaviors is a more feasible target and should necessarily include all the phases of the total testing process-in the pre-analytical phase, appropriateness of test requests, harmonization of autoantibody terminology, and adoption of uniform nomenclature for laboratory tests; in the analytical phase, harmonization of measurements, and sharing of test profiles and diagnostic algorithms; and in the post-analytical phase, harmonization of data reporting, and criteria for interpreting immunoserological results, especially harmonization of units, reference intervals, decision limits, and definition and notification of critical values. We here provide and discuss some examples of harmonization initiatives related to anti-nuclear antibodies, TSH receptor, and anti-thyroid peroxidase antibodies and to antibodies associated with autoimmune hepatitis and with celiac disease. These initiatives could be the starting steps to achieve a wider consensus and a closer interaction among stakeholders in the path of autoimmune diagnostics harmonization to enhance clinical effectiveness and provide greater patient safety.

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.

Performance analysis of automated evaluation of Crithidia luciliae-based indirect immunofluorescence tests in a routine setting - strengths and weaknesses

BACKGROUND

Antibodies directed against dsDNA are a highly specific diagnostic marker for the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus and of particular importance in its diagnosis. To assess anti-dsDNA antibodies, the Crithidia luciliae-based indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT) is one of the assays considered to be the best choice. To overcome the drawback of subjective result interpretation that inheres indirect immunofluorescence assays in general, automated systems have been introduced into the market during the last years. Among these systems is the EUROPattern Suite, an advanced automated fluorescence microscope equipped with different software packages, capable of automated pattern interpretation and result suggestion for ANA, ANCA and CLIFT analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed the performance of the EUROPattern Suite with its automated fluorescence interpretation for CLIFT in a routine setting, reflecting the everyday life of a diagnostic laboratory. Three hundred and twelve consecutive samples were collected, sent to the Central Diagnostic Laboratory of the Maastricht University Medical Centre with a request for anti-dsDNA analysis over a period of 7 months.

RESULTS

Agreement between EUROPattern assay analysis and the visual read was 93.3%. Sensitivity and specificity were 94.1% and 93.2%, respectively. The EUROPattern Suite performed reliably and greatly supported result interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated image acquisition is readily performed and automated image classification gives a reliable recommendation for assay evaluation to the operator. The EUROPattern Suite optimizes workflow and contributes to standardization between different operators or laboratories.

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

Occurrence of autoantibodies (autoAbs) is a hallmark of autoimmune diseases, and the analysis thereof is an essential part in the diagnosis of organ-specific autoimmune and systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD), especially connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Due to the appearance of autoAb profiles in SARD patients and the complexity of the corresponding serological diagnosis, different diagnostic strategies have been suggested for appropriate autoAb testing. Thus, evolving assay techniques and the continuous discovery of novel autoantigens have greatly influenced the development of these strategies. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) analysis by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on tissue and later cellular substrates was one of the first tests introduced into clinical routine and is still an indispensable tool for CTD serology. Thus, screening for ANA by IIF is recommended to be followed by confirmatory testing of positive findings employing different assay techniques. Given the continuous growth in the demand for autoAb testing, IIF has been challenged as the standard method for ANA and other autoAb analyses due to lacking automation, standardization, modern data management, and human bias in IIF pattern interpretation. To address these limitations of autoAb testing, the CytoBead® technique has been introduced recently which enables automated interpretation of cell-based IIF and quantitative autoAb multiplexing by addressable microbead immunoassays in one reaction environment. Thus, autoAb screening and confirmatory testing can be combined for the first time. The present review discusses the history of autoAb assay techniques in this context and gives an overview and outlook of the recent progress in emerging technologies.

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.

Evaluation of a digital dispenser for direct curve dilutions in a vaccine potency assay

Dilutions are a common source of analytical error, both in terms of accuracy and precision, and a common source of analyst mistakes. When serial dilutions are used, errors compound, even when employing laboratory automation. Direct point dilutions instead of serial dilutions can reduce error but is often impractical as they require either large diluent volumes or very small sample volumes when performed with traditional liquid handling equipment. We evaluated preparation of dilution curves using a picoliter digital dispenser, the HP, Inc. / TECAN D300 which is capable of accurately delivering picoliter volumes directly into sample wells filled with assay diluent. Dilution linearity and variability of the direct dilutions were similar to or less than those generated with a traditional liquid handler as measured using a fluorophore assay and an ELISA used to measure vaccine potency. Minimum concentrations for detergent in the dispensed sample were identified but no correlation with detergent characteristics was observed. The tolerance to protein in the sample was evaluated as well with up to 5% BSA having no impact on dispense linearity and precision. We found the digital dispenser to reduce automation complexity while maintaining or improving assay performance in addition to facilitating complex plate lay-outs.

Clinical consequences of polymerase chain reaction-based diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections

The implementation of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostics of intestinal protozoa has led to higher sensitivity and (subtype) specificity, more convenient sampling, and the possibility for high-throughput screening. PCR for routine detection of human intestinal protozoa in fecal samples is used by an increasing number of clinical laboratories. This paper discusses the recent developments in the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa, with an emphasis on PCR-based diagnostics. Although many reviews have described the technical aspects of PCR-based diagnostics, this review focuses on the clinical consequences that result from the shift from microscopic toward PCR-based diagnostics. Despite its undisputed superiority, the use of PCR comes with challenges that clinicians should be aware of.

New automated indirect immunofluorescent antinuclear antibody testing compares well with established manual immunofluorescent screening and titration for antinuclear antibody on HEp-2 cells

The IIF using the HEp-2 cell substrate should be still considered the "gold standard" techniques for determination of antinuclear antibody (ANA). Standardization and automation can be considered to be still in progress. Aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the commercially automated indirect immunofluorescent antinuclear HEp-2 antibody assay. The study was designed to compare two commercially available HEp-2 ANA by indirect immunofluorescent antibody assays using a sensitivity panel (120 clinically determined patients) and a specificity panel consisting of 78 clinically confirmed negative patients. We compared the NOVA View^® system [INOVA Diagnostics San Diego, USA] with the new HELIOS Processor from AESKU Systems/AESKU.Diagnostics (Wendelsheim, Germany) to assess their capability for screening, pattern recognition and titration of the samples. These automated methods were directly compared to manual reading of the same processed slides on respective microscopes and also compared with the known clinical information. The results of the two automated methods were in very good agreement with recognizing negative and positive samples. The HELIOS system detected 188 samples correctly as negative or positive versus 187 detected by the NOVA View^® system. The diagnostic sensitivity of the systems was 95.8 versus 96.7 % for HELIOS and NOVA View^®, respectively. The systems exhibited a diagnostic specificity of 93.5 % for the HELIOS system and 91.0 % for the NOVA View^®. Both systems are suitable for fast and reliable detection of positivity/negativity due to their high sensitivity and will lead to a further increase of standardization in autoimmunity.