Response to: ‘Semi-quantitative analysis of line blot assay for myositis-specific and myositis-associated antibodies: a better performance?’ by Cavazzana et al

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.

Diagnosis and subtyping of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: caution required in the use of myositis autoantibodies

Detection of myositis autoantibodies (MAs) has utility in both the diagnosis and subtyping of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). Multiplex assays such as the Euroimmun line immunoassay (LIA) have significant limitations in rare diseases like IIM. A retrospective cohort study was performed on positive MA detected on LIA in 171 patients using the manufacturer's recommended cut-off. Only 16.7% were deemed true positive after clinical correlation. Autoantibody-specific cut-offs were created and applied to the original cohort, along with generically applied higher cut-offs. Positive predictive value (PPV) improved, but there was variable increase in false negatives. False positive MA results are common using LIA, but locally derived cut-offs can improve performance. Clinicians must be aware of the limitations of LIA, which is the commonest method for MA detection in Australasia.

Prognostic values of anti-Ro52 antibodies in anti-MDA5-positive clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis associated with interstitial lung disease

OBJECTIVE

Anti-Ro52 antibody often co-occurs with anti-Jo1 antibody in antisynthetase syndrome and their co-occurrence correlates with a more aggressive clinical phenotype and poorer prognosis. The strong association of anti-Ro52 antibody with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated protein-5 (anti-MDA5) antibody has been indicated in juvenile myositis. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance of anti-Ro52 antibody in a cohort of adult patients with anti-MDA5-positive clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis with interstitial lung disease (CADM-ILD).

METHODS

We assessed a cohort of 83 consecutive patients with anti-MDA5-positive CADM-ILD. Anti-MDA5 antibodies and anti-Ro52 antibodies were detected in immunoblotting and semi-quantitatively analysed by densitometry. Clinical features and the 24 month survival were compared between anti-MDA5-positive patients with and without anti-Ro52 antibodies.

RESULTS

Anti-Ro52 antibodies were found in 74.7% of anti-MDA5-positive CADM-ILD patients and were associated with an increased frequency of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD; 54.8% vs 23.8%; P = 0.014) and cutaneous ulcerations (27.4% vs 4.8%; P = 0.033). The cumulative 24 month survival rate tended to be lower in patients with anti-Ro52 antibodies than patients without (59.9% vs 85.7%; P = 0.051). The combination of anti-Ro52 antibody status and anti-MDA5 antibody levels further stratified patients' survival rates, showing that the survival rate of patients who were dual positive for anti-MDA5 antibody and anti-Ro52 antibody was significantly lower than patients with mild positive anti-MDA5 antibody alone (59.9% vs 100%; P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Anti-Ro52 antibody is highly prevalent in anti-MDA5-positive CADM-ILD patients and their coexistence correlates with a subgroup of patients with more aggressive phenotypes. The combination of anti-MDA5 antibody levels and anti-Ro52 antibody status could help to predict patients' prognosis and guide risk-based therapy.

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

AIM

To evaluate myositis line immunoassay (LIA) for diagnosis and sub-classification of suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM). To investigate if test performance is improved by increasing signal strength cut-off for myositis-specific antibody (MSA) or combining MSA with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF).

METHODS

A retrospective, consecutive case series of patients investigated for MSAs from June 2013 to June 2020 for suspected IIM. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated with 95% confidence intervals for diagnosis of IIM. Association of IIM diagnosis with increased signal strength and presence of an expected IIF pattern on Hep-2 cells was assessed by Fisher's exact test in MSA-positive patients.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were evaluated. IIM was diagnosed in 32/195 (16.4%) patients. MSAs were detected in 41/195 (21%) patients, 18/41 (43.9%) patients with an MSA had a diagnosis of IIM. The probability of an IIM diagnosis was increased in MSA-positive patients with high compared with low signal strength (83.3% vs 43.5%; P = 0.01) and an expected compared with unexpected IIF pattern (61.5% vs 23.8%; P = 0.04). Specificity for IIM was not significantly improved by increasing signal strength cut-off (85.9% vs 93.8%). Positive predictive value of myositis LIA was only modest and not significantly improved by either increasing signal strength cut-off or requiring an expected IIF pattern for determination of MSA positivity (43.9% vs 60% vs 61.5%). Sub-classification of IIM correlated closely for respective MSAs (88.9%).

CONCLUSION

Increased MSA signal strength on myositis LIA and the presence of an expected IIF pattern were associated with IIM diagnosis. Test performance was non-significantly improved by these methods. Prevalence of IIM in this patient cohort was low; it is not excluded that LIA performance could be improved by these methods in a higher prevalence cohort.