Consensus guidelines on anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I testing and reporting

Is there Clinically Relevant Plasma Interference with ELISA Detection of APS Antibodies? Reproducibility of Real-World Paired Serum and Plasma Testing

No Abstract.

The Clinical Performance of a New Chemiluminescent Immunoassay in Measuring Anti-β2 Glycoprotein 1 and Anti-Cardiolipin Antibodies

BACKGROUND Laboratory criterion is needed for the classification of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), which contain anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies (aβ2GP1). They are commonly identified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), but lack standardized kits, resulting in substantial variations in the antibody positivity between different laboratories. The emergence of chemiluminescence automated -BIO-FLASH may improve the situation. MATERIAL AND METHODS We selected 185 patients with APS, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), infertility, connective tissue disease (CTD), and other conditions in Peking University Third Hospital. We tested the aCL and aβ2GP1 levels by EUROIMMUN ELISA and 105 patients had at least one positive result for aCL and aβ2GP1, while the others had negative results. We retested them by chemiluminescence assay (CIA) and analyzed the result and compared the coincidence rate. The IgM levels were retested by AESKU ELISA. Data were analyzed using SPSS. RESULTS Our result suggested that CIA had good performance for IgG isotype of aCL and aβ2GP1 in the coincidence rate. The positive coincidence rate of aCL IgM between CIA and EUROIMMUN ELISA was only 41.67%, but two ELISA kits showed good coincidence, CIA and AESKU ELISA had an obviously higher positive rate. CIA and AESKU had a higher coincidence than that of AESKU and EUROIMMUN in aβ2GP1-IgM. CONCLUSIONS The new automated CIA BIO-FLASH is suitable for detecting aCL and aβ2GP1 antibodies, especially IgG isotype, which may provide an alternative to time-consuming conventional ELISA method.

Revisiting the Phadia/EliA cut-off values for anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies: a systematic evaluation according to the guidelines

Background Phadia/EliA fluorescence enzyme immunoassays are widely used automated assays for anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies. To date, cut-off values for these assays have not been evaluated systematically and the evidence behind manufacturer's recommended cut-off values is not clear. Objective To determine Phadia/EliA cut-off values for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) according to the procedures suggested by guidelines. Methods A total of 266 blood donors (135 females and 131 males) were included. The pre-handling and analysis of the samples were performed according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) guideline for solid phase aPL assays. Cut-off values and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI) for each antibody were established and outliers were handled according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline for reference intervals. Samples from 377 consecutive patients, referred to our thrombophilia center with evidence of thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity were included for aPL testing. Results The in-house 99th (97.5th) percentile cut-off values were 11 (8.7), 12 (6.9) 8.5 (5.0) AU/mL for aβ2GPI IgG, IgM and IgA, and 21 (13) GPL-U/mL and 41 (25) MPL-U/mL for aCL IgG and IgM, respectively. The prevalence of positive results (%) defined by these cut-off values in patients with evidence of thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity was 9.5 (12.2), 1.6 (2.9), and 7.0 (9.9), and 0.8 (3.8) for aβ2GPI IgG, IgM, and aCL IgG and IgM respectively. The use of in-house 99th percentile cut-off values compared to the manufacturer suggested cut-off values resulted in 1 and 39 fewer samples for aβ2GPI and aCL to be classified as positive for aPL, respectively. Conclusions We present Phadia/EliA cut-off values with 90% CI for aPL determined systematically according to the ISTH and CLSI guidelines. These values are different from values previously determined, suggesting variation of aPLs in different populations. Our findings indicate the need for each laboratory to determine/validate assay specific cut-off values for aPL.

Diagnosis and management of non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

Accurate diagnosis of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a prerequisite for optimal clinical management. The international consensus (revised Sapporo) criteria for obstetric APS do not include low positive anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies (> 99th centile) and/or certain clinical criteria such as two unexplained miscarriages, three non-consecutive miscarriages, late preeclampsia, placental abruption, late premature birth, or two or more unexplained in vitro fertilisation failures. In this review we examine the available evidence to address the question of whether patients who exhibit non-criteria clinical and/or laboratory manifestations should be included within the spectrum of obstetric APS. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies of women with pregnancy morbidity, particularly recurrent pregnancy loss, suggest that elimination of aCL and/or IgM aβ2GPI, or low positive positive aCL or aβ2GPI from APS laboratory diagnostic criteria may result in missing the diagnosis in a sizeable number of women who could be regarded to have obstetric APS. Such prospective and retrospective studies also suggest that women with non-criteria obstetric APS may benefit from standard treatment for obstetric APS with low-molecular-weight heparin plus low-dose aspirin, with good pregnancy outcomes. Thus, non-criteria manifestations of obstetric APS may be clinically relevant, and merit investigation of therapeutic approaches. Women with obstetric APS appear to be at a higher risk than other women of pre-eclampsia, placenta- mediated complications and neonatal mortality, and also at increased long-term risk of thrombotic events. The applicability of these observations to outcomes in women with non-criteria obstetric APS remains to be determined.

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.

"New" antigenic targets and methodological approaches for refining laboratory diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) are a heterogeneous group of antibodies directed against phospholipids or protein/phospholipid complexes. Currently, aPLs are assessed using either "solid-phase" assays that identify anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies or "liquid-phase" assay that identifies lupus anticoagulant. However, in the last few years, "new" antigenic targets and methodological approaches have been employed for refining laboratory diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). In this review the potential diagnostic value of antibodies to domains of β2-GPI, prothrombin/phosphatidylserine, vimentin/cardiolipin, protein S, protein C, annexin A2, annexin A5, and phospholipid antigens is discussed. Moreover, new technical approaches, including chemiluminescence, multiline dot assay, and thin layer chromatography (TLC) immunostaining, which utilize different supports for detection of aPL, have been developed. A special focus has been dedicated on "seronegative" APS, that is, those patients with a clinical profile suggestive of APS (thromboses, recurrent miscarriages, or foetal loss), who are persistently negative for the routinely used aPL. Recent findings suggest that, in sera from patients with SN-APS, antibodies may be detected using "new" antigenic targets (mainly vimentin/cardiolipin) or methodological approaches different from traditional techniques (TLC immunostaining). Thus, APS represents a mosaic, in which antibodies against different antigenic targets may be detected thanks to the continuously evolving new technologies.

Antiphospholipid antibody testing and standardization

The laboratory criteria that define patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) include lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI). All assays show methodological shortcomings and the combination of the three tests, each with different sensitivity and specificity, and hence, differences in clinical utility make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. Consensus guidelines and proposals for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) testing have been published in the last 20 years and have led to a substantial improvement. Despite efforts so far, standardization is not reached yet, but progress has been made. On-going efforts to reduce the interlaboratory/interassay variations remain important; even an absolute standardization cannot be feasibly achieved. Taking into account the methodological shortcomings of the means we have available, more detailed guidelines may help in adequate performance of aPL testing. This review will focus on the efforts and achievements in standardization and on the weaknesses and strengths of the current available laboratory methods.

14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force. Report on antiphospholipid syndrome laboratory diagnostics and trends

Current classification criteria for definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) require the use of three laboratory assays to detect antiphospholipid antibodies (aCL, anti-β2GPI and LA) in the presence of at least one of the two major clinical manifestations (i.e. thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity) of the syndrome. However, several other autoantibodies shown to be directed to other proteins or their complex with phospholipids have been proposed to be relevant to APS but their clinical utility and their diagnostic value remains elusive. This report summarizes the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the "APS Task Force 3-Laboratory Diagnostics and Trends" meeting that took place during the 14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies (APLA 2013, September 18-21, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil).

Heterogeneity between diagnostic tests for IgA anti-beta2 glycoprotein I: explaining the controversy in studies of association with vascular pathology

IgA antibeta 2 Glycoprotein I (β2GPI) antibodies test can identify some patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) that are negative for other isotypes. Controversy exists because some studies have reported a strong association of these antibodies with vascular disease, while others have not confirmed this observation. Our hypothesis is that these contradictory results may be due to differences among commercial diagnostic kits. To answer this question, we have compared the results obtained with several of the most commonly used commercial IgA anti β2GPI antibodies (aβ2GPI) diagnostic assays on specimens from individuals suspected of having APS. Sera from 69 patients (37 positive and 32 negative for IgA aβ2GPI) were analyzed with seven different commercial ELISA kits for IgA aβ2GPI, following instructions and cutoffs provided by the manufacturer. Our results showed important differences in the sensitivity and specificity of the different assays. Two of the seven kits tested had a sensitivity level below 65% for IgA aβ2GPI, and three showed levels of specificity lower than 80%. Some commercial kits to detect IgA aβ2GPI are suboptimal. Variability between kits may account for the discrepancy in results obtained and for the lack of consensus concerning their clinical significance. It is important that the scientific community work to standardize assay performance so that the true clinical significance of this important clinical marker can be clearly established.

Anticardiolipin antibody and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I antibody assays

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease and is a risk factor for a number of clinical manifestations; the classic presentations include fetal death or thrombosis (arterial or venous thromboembolism), in the presence of persistently increased titers of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. The actual cause of APS is unknown but thought to be multifactorial. The disease is characterized by the presence of a heterogenous population of autoantibodies against phospholipid-binding proteins. APS presents either in isolation with no evidence of an underlying disease or in concert with an autoimmune disease such as systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis. The wide diversity in clinical presentation often causes difficulty in identifying and treating patients and therefore a concise laboratory report containing interpretative comments is required to provide needed guidance to the clinician. For a diagnosis of APS to be made both clinical and laboratory classification criteria must be met. Laboratory testing to identify aPL antibodies includes lupus anticoagulant (liquid-based clotting assays) and immunological solid-phase assays (usually enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay formats) for IgG and/or IgM anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) antibodies. Other autoantibodies, such as those directed against anionic phospholipids, can also be assayed; however they are not of clinical significance. Participation in a quality assurance program and an in-depth technical and clinical understanding of testing for aPL antibodies are required, as methods are limited by poor robustness, reproducibility, specificity, and standardization. Testing is further complicated by the lack of a "gold standard" laboratory test to diagnose or classify a patient as having APS. This chapter discusses the clinical and laboratory theoretical and technical aspects of aCL and anti-β2GPI antibody assays.

IgM, but not IgA rheumatoid factor interferes with anti-cardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein I measurements: a quantitative analysis

IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) is sometimes referred to as capable of causing interference in the IgM anti-cardiolipin (aCL) testing. Published guidelines are, however, inconsistent, and evidence regarding the interference is limited. Our goal was investigate IgM and IgA RF cross-reactivity and/or interference in IgM and IgA aCL and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) testing. Serum specimens with high IgM and IgA RF levels were tested for IgG, IgA and IgM aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies to examine cross-reactivity. Samples containing IgG aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies were spiked with IgM (and IgA) RF, and samples with high RF levels were spiked with IgG aCL antibodies. The mixtures were tested for IgM and IgA aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies. Specimens with high IgM and IgA RF concentrations did not test positive for IgM or IgA aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies (except one weak positive IgA aβ2GPI result), indicating the lack of cross-reactivity. In the spiked specimens, addition of IgM RF caused significant positive bias in the measurement of both aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies of IgM isotype in the presence of IgG aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies. The threshold for triggering significant interference was 318 IU/ml for IgM RF, and 77 GPLU/ml for IgG aCL. Neither IgM, nor IgA RF, however, affected the IgA antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody testing. IgM RF can cause a false-positive IgM aCL result in the presence of IgG aCL antibodies. In studies on the prevalence and clinical significance of IgM aPL antibodies, RF interference should be considered and RF testing should be performed.

‘Criteria’ aPL tests: Report of a Task Force and preconference workshop at the 13th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies, Galveston, Texas, April 2010

Current classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) mandate the use of one or more of three positive ‘standardized’ laboratory assays to detect antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) (viz: anticardiolipin [aCL] IgG and IgM; anti-β2glycoprotein I [anti-β2GPI] antibodies IgG and IgM; and/or a lupus anticoagulant [LAC]), when at least one of the two major clinical manifestations (thrombosis or pregnancy losses) are present. Although, efforts of standardization for these ‘criteria’ aPL tests have been conducted over the last 27 years, reports of inconsistencies, inter-assay and inter-laboratory variation in the results of aCL, LAC, and anti-β2GPI, and problems with the interpretation and the clinical value of the tests still exist, which affect the consistency of the diagnosis of APS. A Task Force of scientists and pioneers in the field from different countries, subdivided in three working groups, discussed and analyzed critical questions related to ‘criteria’ aPL tests in an evidence-based manner, during the 13th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies (APLA 2010, April 13–16, 2010, Galveston, TX). These included: review of the standardization and the need for international consensus protocol for aCL and anti-β2GPI tests; the use of monoclonal and/or polyclonal standards in the calibration curve of those tests; and the need for establishment of international units of measurement for anti-β2GPI tests. The group also reviewed the recently updated guidelines for LAC testing, and analyzed and discussed the possibility of stratification of ‘criteria’ aPL tests as risk factors for APS, as well as the clinical value of single positive vs. multiple aPL positivity. The group members presented, discussed, analyzed data, updated and re-defined those critical questions at a preconference workshop that was open to congress attendees. This report summarizes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this Task Force.

Laboratory testing for the antiphospholipid syndrome: making sense of antiphospholipid antibody assays

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterised by a wide range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric related), associated with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialities, largely due to issues related to laboratory testing as well as the expanding range of reported clinical manifestations of APS. The laboratory issues include limitations in detailed knowledge by both clinical and laboratory personnel regarding the 'complete' range of available aPL tests, as well as ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardisation. aPL are identified using diverse laboratory procedures based on one of two distinct test processes, namely solid phase and liquid phase assays. The former includes anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ(2)GPI). The latter are centred on clot-based tests that are used to identify the so-called lupus anticoagulant (LA). This article will discuss: (i) issues related to laboratory testing for APS in terms of the currently available solid-phase and liquid-phase assays, and identifiable biases resulting from these tests usually being performed in different laboratories; (ii) current problems with calibration, standardisation and reproducibility of these assays; (iii) pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical considerations and ongoing initiatives for improvement; (iv) issues related to potential combinations/panels of available aPL tests; and (v) the entities of seropositive APS, seronegative APS and non-APS aPL-positivity. In doing so, this review will hopefully help bridge the two disciplines of haematology and immunology ('representing' liquid-phase and solid-phase aPL testing, respectively), by improving the understanding of those working in each of these disciplines of the merits and limitations of the assays performed in the other discipline, and encouraging inter-discipline cooperation in the reporting of aPL test results.

Domain V peptides inhibit beta2-glycoprotein I-mediated mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion-induced tissue damage and inflammation

Reperfusion of ischemic tissue induces significant tissue damage in multiple conditions, including myocardial infarctions, stroke, and transplantation. Although not as common, the mortality rate of mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion (IR) remains >70%. Although complement and naturally occurring Abs are known to mediate significant damage during IR, the target Ags are intracellular molecules. We investigated the role of the serum protein, β2-glycoprotein I as an initiating Ag for Ab recognition and β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) peptides as a therapeutic for mesenteric IR. The time course of β2-GPI binding to the tissue indicated binding and complement activation within 15 min postreperfusion. Treatment of wild-type mice with peptides corresponding to the lipid binding domain V of β2-GPI blocked intestinal injury and inflammation, including cellular influx and cytokine and eicosanoid production. The optimal therapeutic peptide (peptide 296) contained the lysine-rich region of domain V. In addition, damage and most inflammation were also blocked by peptide 305, which overlaps with peptide 296 but does not contain the lysine-rich, phospholipid-binding region. Importantly, peptide 296 retained efficacy after replacement of cysteine residues with serine. In addition, infusion of wild-type serum containing reduced levels of anti-β2-GPI Abs into Rag-1(-/-) mice prevented IR-induced intestinal damage and inflammation. Taken together, these data suggest that the serum protein β2-GPI initiates the IR-induced intestinal damage and inflammatory response and as such is a critical therapeutic target for IR-induced damage and inflammation.

The antiphospholipid syndrome: a large elephant with many parts or an elusive chameleon disguised by many colours?

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by a range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric-related), together with the presence of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic and management challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialties, some 30 years after APS was first described as a discrete clinical entity. This is due to ongoing issues regarding nomenclature, the diagnosis of APS in individual patients, the expanding range of recognized clinical manifestations and of APS-related laboratory tests, and management issues in particular APS patient subgroups (including obstetric and catastrophic APS). In addition to the presence of appropriate clinical features, the diagnosis of APS fundamentally requires the finding of positive aPL test result(s), which is hampered by ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardization. This review focuses on ongoing dilemmas and issues related to clinical and laboratory aspects of APS including: (1) diagnostic challenges posed by the protean clinical manifestations of APS; (2) current nomenclature and recent proposals for revision of the 2006 international classification criteria; (3) an overview of some key issues related to aPL testing; (4) potential pitfalls of applying the APS classification criteria as diagnostic criteria; and (5) the controversial subgroups of seronegative APS and non-APS aPL positivity.

Laboratory reporting of hemostasis assays: the final post-analytical opportunity to reduce errors of clinical diagnosis in hemostasis?

The advent of modern instrumentation, with associated improvements in test performance and reliability, together with appropriate internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assurance (EQA) measures, has led to substantial reductions in analytical errors within hemostasis laboratories. Unfortunately, the reporting of incorrect or inappropriate test results still occurs, perhaps even as frequently as in the past. Many of these cases arise due to a variety of events largely outside the control of the laboratories performing the tests. These events are primarily preanalytical, related to sample collection and processing, but can also include post-analytical events related to the reporting and interpretation of test results. The current report provides an overview of these events, as well as guidance for prevention or minimization. In particular, we propose several strategies for the post-analytical reporting of hemostasis assays, and how this may provide the final opportunity to prevent serious clinical errors in diagnosis. This report should be of interest to both the laboratory scientists working in hemostasis and clinicians that request and attempt to interpret the test results. Laboratory scientists are ultimately responsible for these test results, and there is a duty to provide both accurate and precise results to enable clinicians to manage patients appropriately and to avoid the need to recollect and retest. Also, clinicians will not be in a position to best diagnose and manage their patient unless they gain an appreciation of these issues.

Interpretative reports and critical values

In the clinical laboratory to allow an effective testing process, post-analytical activity can have two goals in trying to improve patient safety: result interpretation and communication of critical values. Both are important issues, and their success requires a cooperative effort. Misinterpretation of laboratory test results or ineffectiveness in their notification can lead to diagnostic errors or errors in identifying patient critical conditions. With the awareness that the incorrect interpretation of tests and the breakdown in the communication of critical values are preventable errors, laboratorians should make every effort to prevent the types of errors that potentially harm patients. In order to improve the reliability of laboratories, we attempt to explain how interpretative reporting and automated notification of critical values can be used to reduce errors. Clinical laboratories can therefore work to improve clinical effectiveness, without forgetting that everything should be designed to provide the best outcomes for patients.