Performance of myositis-specific antibodies detected on myositis line immunoassay to diagnose and sub-classify patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, a retrospective records-based review

Assessing the sensitivity and specificity of myositis-specific and associated autoantibodies: a sub-study from the MyoCite cohort

OBJECTIVES

Myositis-specific and associated autoantibodies are important biomarkers in routine clinical use. We assessed local testing performance for myositis autoantibodies by comparing line immunoassay (LIA) to protein radio-immunoprecipitation and identifying clinical characteristics associated with each myositis autoantibody in the MyoCite cohort.

METHODS

Serum samples from patients within the MyoCite cohort, a well-characterized retro-prospective dataset of adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) patients in Lucknow, India (2017-2020), underwent LIA at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Science (SGPGIMS), Lucknow. Immunoprecipitation of 147 IIM patients' serum samples (125 adult-onset, 22 juvenile-onset) was conducted at the University of Bath, with researchers blind to LIA results. LIA performance was assessed against immunoprecipitation as the reference standard, measuring sensitivity, specificity and inter-rater agreement. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined clinical associations for specific myositis-specific autoantibodies.

RESULTS

Immunoprecipitation identified myositis autoantibodies in 56.5% (n = 83) of patient samples, with anti-Jo1 (n = 16; 10.9%) as the most common, followed by anti-MDA5 (n = 14, 9.5%). While LIA showed good agreement for anti-Jo1, anti-PL7 and anti-PL12 (Cohen's κ 0.79, 0.83 and 1, respectively), poor agreement was observed in other subgroups, notably anti-TIF1γ (Cohen's κ 0.21). Strongly positive samples, especially in myositis-specific autoantibodies, correlated more with immunoprecipitation results. Overall, 59 (40.1%) samples exhibited non-congruence on LIA and immunoprecipitation, and κ values for LIAs for anti-TIF1γ, anti-Ku, anti-PmScl, anti-Mi2 and anti-SAE ranged between 0.21 and 0.60.

CONCLUSION

While LIA reliably detected anti-Jo1, anti-PL7, anti-PL12, anti-MDA5 and anti-NXP-2, it also displayed false positives and negatives. Its effectiveness in detecting other autoantibodies, such as anti-TIF1γ, was poor.

Autoantibody testing in myositis: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an update on myositis autoantibody testing strategies. We have focussed on the reliability and usefulness of different myositis autoantibody detection methods, including commonly used solid phase immunoassays and newer discovery techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have highlighted the limitations of currently available immunoassays, particularly when used in populations with low pretest probability and without supporting clinical evidence. While many autoantibodies, such as anti-Jo1, are detected with high sensitivity and specificity, the low incidence of myositis autoantibodies in tested populations reduces their positive predictive value. The low sensitivity of line immunoassays to detect key myositis autoantibodies, including anti-TIF1γ and rarer antisynthetase autoantibodies, is a concern.

SUMMARY

Myositis autoantibodies are widely accepted as important clinical tools, and hence, there is a significant demand for reliable, accessible, and affordable detection methods. False positives and negative results have the potential to impact on patient care, particularly for malignancy and lung disease associated autoantibodies. Increased availability of myositis autoantibody testing has led to a rise in requests from a broader range of clinicians. It is critically important that clinicians are aware of specific limitations of tests and interpret results in the context of clinical findings.

Positive predictive value of myositis antibody line blot testing in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

Line blot (LB) is in widespread use for myositis antibody detection. Yet, studies of its positive predictive value (PPV) in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM), which would be of particular relevance to neuromuscular clinicians, are lacking. We aimed to determine the PPV of myositis antibody LB testing in patients with suspected IIM, and examine whether PPV was significantly impacted by intensity of antibody positivity.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent myositis antibody LB testing for suspected IIM between March 2019 and August 2022.

RESULTS

Of 70 patients who underwent testing for suspected IIM and had positive myositis antibody LB results, 43 (61%) were female and the median age was 61 years (range: 10-83 years). Forty-four were classified as true-positives, yielding a PPV of 63%. The PPV of patients with weak-positive myositis antibody results (14/30, 47%) was significantly lower than the PPV of patients with moderate-positive or strong-positive myositis antibody results (30/40, 75%) (p = .02).

DISCUSSION

Our study found that myositis antibody LB testing in patients with suspected IIM had a modest PPV, underscoring the need for antibody interpretation in the context of all available clinical and ancillary test data to avoid misdiagnosis. The significantly lower PPV in patients with weak-positive results emphasizes the particular importance of clinical correlation in such patients. Further study into the diagnostic performance of various LBs for myositis antibody detection is needed to inform their interpretation in clinical practice.

Myositis autoantibodies detected by line blot immunoassay: clinical associations and correlation with antibody signal intensity

The aim of this study is to assess the relationship between myositis specific (MSA) and myositis associated (MAA) antibodies and diagnosis (including idiopathic inflammatory myopathies [IIM] and other systemic autoimmune diseases [SAID]), and to explore the impact of antibody signal intensity in diagnostic accuracy. We retrospectively reviewed all the serum samples obtained from patients tested for MSA/MAA by line immunoassay (LIA) between 01/01/2018 and 31/12/2020 in Ramón y Cajal University Hospital (Spain). Clinical true positive (CTP) MSAs and MAAs were defined as those patients with IIM or SAID with phenotypes expected of that MSA/MAA. Patients who did not have a phenotype compatible with that antibody were classified as clinical false positive (CFP). One hundred and thirty positive samples were analysed. Forty-six patients (33.38%) were classified as IIM, forty-two (32.3%) as SAID and forty-two (32.3%) as non-IIM/SAID. Among these 130 patients, 164 MSA/MAA were detected. Eighty-five (51.8%) positive MSA/MAA were classified as CTP, and seventy-nine (48.2%) as CFP. Strongly positive antibodies were more frequently CTP (35/47, 74.5%) than weak positives (54/68, 36.8%), (p ˂ 0.001). Antibodies classified as CTP had a higher signal intensity than CFP (36.77 AU vs 20.00 AU, CI95% 7.79-22.09, p ˂ 0.001). The probability of a CFP was associated to negative ANA, low ANA titer, and multiple positive MSA/MAA (p ˂ 0.001). In this study, we confirmed that CFP results using LIA are frequent, and are associated with low signal intensity MSA/MAA, negative ANA, lower titer ANA, and with multiple positive samples.