Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases

Clinical Performance of Two Automated Immunoassays, EliA CTD Screen and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus, for Antinuclear Antibody Screening

Background

Recently, two fully automated immunoassays for antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening were introduced EliA CTD Screen (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany) and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, USA). We evaluated their clinical performance in comparison with the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) and analyzed samples with discrepant results.

Methods

In total, 406 serum samples (206 from patients undergoing routine checkups and 200 from rheumatology clinic patients) were assayed using EliA, QUANTA Flash, and IIFA. We evaluated assay concordance and agreement and confirmed the presence of anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) antibodies in samples with discrepant automated immunoassay and IIFA results. Additionally, we compared the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD) and adjusted the cut-off values.

Results

In rheumatology clinic samples, the concordance and agreement were 91.5% and strong between EliA and QUANTA Flash, 79.0% and weak between EliA and IIFA, and 80.5% and moderate between QUANTA Flash and IIFA, respectively. In automated immunoassay-positive, IIFA-negative samples (N=15), all anti-ENA antibodies detected (6/15) were anti-Sjögren’s syndrome antigen A/Ro (Ro60) antibodies. The automated immunoassays and IIFA showed high accuracy for diagnosing AARD, and adjusted cut-off values improved their sensitivities (EliA with 0.56 ratio, 82.9% sensitivity; QUANTA Flash with 9.7 chemiluminescent units, 87.8% sensitivity).

Conclusions

The two automated immunoassays showed reliable performance compared with IIFA and can be efficiently used with the IIFA in clinical immunology laboratories. Clinical cut-off values can be adjusted according to the workflow in each laboratory.

A comparison of a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay versus indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

The aim was to compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) for initial screening of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and to evaluate whether combining IIF with FEIA adds value. A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify fully paired, cross-sectional or case-control studies on ANA screening of CTD reporting results for IIF and FEIA. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. The reference standard was assessed against established classification criteria. The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate and mixed-effects models to allow test results to vary within and across studies. Eighteen studies of good to fair quality were included in the review. IIF had a higher sensitivity than FEIA [cut-off 1:160, 7 studies, 3251 patients, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) versus 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80); cut-off 1:80, 7 studies, 12,311 patients, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) versus 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84)] but lower specificity [1:160, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95); 1:80, 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96)]. A double-positive test had a higher likelihood ratio (LR) for CTD (26.2 (95% CI 23.0-29.9)) than a single positive test (14.4 (95% CI 13.1-15.9) FEIA+, 5.1 (95% CI 4.8-5.4) IIF+). A double-negative test result had more clinical value for ruling out CTD than a single negative test (LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12-0.18) versus 0.21 (95% CI 0.18-0.25) IIF; 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.37) FEIA-). A FEIA+/IIF- discordant result had a higher LR than an IIF+/FEIA- discordant result (LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.7-3.4) versus 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7)). Because of the comparatively higher specificity of FEIA and higher sensitivity of IIF, the combination of FEIA and IIF increases the diagnostic value. Clinicians should be acquainted with the clinical presentation of CTD and aware of the advantages and disadvantages of FEIA and IIF to avoid misinterpretation.

High Seroprevalence of Autoantibodies Typical of Autoimmune Liver Disease in Eastern Ethiopia: Is Chewing of Khat (Catha edulis) a Triggering Factor?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have identified chewing of khat (Catha edulis) as an independent risk factor for liver injury; however, the pathogenetic mechanism remains poorly understood. Case series have found markers of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with khat-related liver disease, suggesting that khat chewing might trigger an autoimmune response. The aims of the present study were (i) to assess the prevalence of autoantibodies typical for autoimmune liver diseases in a healthy population in Ethiopia and (ii) to explore the hypothesis that khat usage triggers autoimmunity.

METHODS

Consenting adults (≥18 years) without known autoimmune disease or manifest liver disease were included. One-hundred-and-sixty-nine individuals with current khat use were compared to 104 individuals who never used khat. Seroprevalence of antinuclear (ANA), antismooth muscle (SMA), and antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) were determined and compared between the groups using logistic regression models to adjust for age and sex.

RESULTS

Overall, 2.6% of the study subjects were positive for ANA, 15.4% for SMA, and 25.6% for AMA. When comparing khat users to nonusers, ANA was detected in 4.1% vs. 0% (p=0.047), SMA in 16.0% vs. 14.4% (p=0.730), and AMA in 24.9% vs. 26.9% (p=0.704). ANA was excluded from multivariable analysis since there was no seropositive in the reference group. After adjusting for sex and age, no significant association between khat use and SMA or AMA was found.

CONCLUSIONS

No association between khat usage and the seropresence of SMA or AMA was found, weakening the hypothesis that khat-related liver injury is mediated through autoimmune mechanisms. However, the seroprevalences of AMA and SMA were strikingly high in this Ethiopian population compared to global estimates, suggesting that diagnostic algorithms for autoimmune liver diseases developed in Europe and North America might lead to misdiagnosis of patients on the African continent.

Evaluation of an Automated Screening Assay, Compared to Indirect Immunofluorescence, an Extractable Nuclear Antigen Assay, and a Line Immunoassay in a Large Cohort of Asian Patients with Antinuclear Antibody-Associated Rheumatoid Diseases: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

We assessed the diagnostic utility of the connective tissue disease (CTD) screen as an automated screening test, in comparison with the indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), EliA extractable nuclear antigen (ENA), and line immunoassay (LIA) for patients with antinuclear antibody- (ANA-) associated rheumatoid disease (AARD). A total of 1115 serum samples from two university hospitals were assayed using these four autoantibody-based methods. The AARD group consisted of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). The qualitative results of all four autoantibody assays showed a significant association with AARDs, compared to controls (P < 0.0001 for all). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of the CTD screen for differentiating total AARDs, SLE, SSc, SS, and MCTD from controls were 0.89, 0.93, 0.73, 0.93, and 0.95, respectively. The ROC-AUCs of combination testing with LIA were slightly higher in patients with AARDs (0.92) than those of CTD screen alone. Multivariate analysis indicated that all four autoantibody assays could independently predict AARDs. CTD screening alone and in combination with IIF, EliA ENA, and LIA are potentially valuable diagnostic approaches for predicting AARDs. Combining CTD screen with LIA might be effective for AARD patients.

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.