Application of linear discriminant analysis in performance evaluation of extractable nuclear antigen immunoassay systems in the screening and diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease

Sjögren disease (SD) is a chronic, autoimmune disease of unknown aetiology with significant impact on quality of life. Although dryness (sicca) of the eyes and mouth are the classically described features, dryness of other mucosal surfaces and systemic manifestations are common. The key management aim should be to empower the individual to manage their condition-conserving, replacing and stimulating secretions; and preventing damage and suppressing systemic disease activity. This guideline builds on and widens the recommendations developed for the first guideline published in 2017. We have included advice on the management of children and adolescents where appropriate to provide a comprehensive guideline for UK-based rheumatology teams.

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.

GPCR-specific autoantibody signatures are associated with physiological and pathological immune homeostasis

Autoantibodies have been associated with autoimmune diseases. However, studies have identified autoantibodies in healthy donors (HD) who do not develop autoimmune disorders. Here we provide evidence of a network of immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibodies targeting G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) in HD compared to patients with systemic sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and ovarian cancer. Sex, age and pathological conditions affect autoantibody correlation and hierarchical clustering signatures, yet many of the correlations are shared across all groups, indicating alterations to homeostasis. Furthermore, we identify relationships between autoantibodies targeting structurally and functionally related molecules, such as vascular, neuronal or chemokine receptors. Finally, autoantibodies targeting the endothelin receptor type A (EDNRA) exhibit chemotactic activity, as demonstrated by neutrophil migration toward HD-IgG in an EDNRA-dependent manner and in the direction of IgG from EDNRA-immunized mice. Our data characterizing the in vivo signatures of anti-GPCR autoantibodies thus suggest that they are a physiological part of the immune system.

Diagnostic value of screening enzyme immunoassays compared to 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 diagnostic accuracy of the screening enzyme immunoassay (SEIA) and indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) as anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) screening assays for patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs), including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and systemic sclerosis (SSc).

METHODS

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

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies including 3976 combined SRDs, 2839 SLE, 610 SS, and 1002 SSc patients and 11,716 non-healthy and 8408 healthy controls were available for the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivities of SEIA vs. IIF were 87.4% vs 88.4% for combined SRDs, 89.4% vs. 95.2% for SLE, 88.7% vs. 88.4% for SS, and 85.4% vs. 93.6% for SSc, respectively. Meanwhile, the summary specificities of SEIA vs. IIF were 79.7% vs.78.9% for combined SRDs, 89.1% vs. 83.3% for SLE, 89.9% vs. 86.8% for SS, and 92.8% vs. 84.2% for SSc, respectively. Although the differences in sensitivity and specificity between SEIA and IIF were not significant in most subgroups, the summary sensitivity of SLE presented statistically significant changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic meta-analysis demonstrates that both SEIA and IIF are useful to detect ANAs for SRDs. Between the two assays, IIF is a more sensitive screening assay than SEIA, particularly in patients with SLE. SEIA is comparable to IIF, considering the specificity and standardization.