Assessment of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence assay: report from a survey by the American Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists

Detection of antinuclear antibodies: recommendations from EFLM, EASI and ICAP

OBJECTIVES

Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are important for the diagnosis of various autoimmune diseases. ANA are usually detected by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA). There are many variables influencing HEp-2 IFA results, such as subjective visual reading, serum screening dilution, substrate manufacturing, microscope components and conjugate. Newer developments on ANA testing that offer novel features adopted by some clinical laboratories include automated computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems and solid phase assays (SPA).

METHODS

A group of experts reviewed current literature and established recommendations on methodological aspects of ANA testing. This process was supported by a two round Delphi exercise. International expert groups that participated in this initiative included (i) the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "Autoimmunity Testing"; (ii) the European Autoimmune Standardization Initiative (EASI); and (iii) the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP).

RESULTS

In total, 35 recommendations/statements related to (i) ANA testing and reporting by HEp-2 IFA; (ii) HEp-2 IFA methodological aspects including substrate/conjugate selection and the application of CAD systems; (iii) quality assurance; (iv) HEp-2 IFA validation/verification approaches and (v) SPA were formulated. Globally, 95% of all submitted scores in the final Delphi round were above 6 (moderately agree, agree or strongly agree) and 85% above 7 (agree and strongly agree), indicating strong international support for the proposed recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are an important step to achieve high quality ANA testing.

Working Algorithms and Detection Methods of Autoantibodies in Autoimmune Liver Disease: A Nationwide Study

Autoantibody detection is the cornerstone of autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) diagnosis. Standardisation of working algorithms among autoimmunity laboratories, as well as being aware of the sensitivity and specificity of various commercial techniques in daily practice, are still necessary. The aim of this nationwide study is to report the results of the 2020 Autoimmunity Workshop organised by the Autoimmunity Group of the Spanish Society of Immunology and to provide useful information to clinicians and laboratory specialists to improve the management of autoantibody detection in AILD diagnoses. Serum samples from 17 patients with liver diseases were provided by the organisers of the 2020 Autoimmunity Workshop and were subsequently analysed by the 40 participating laboratories. Each laboratory used different techniques for the detection of autoantibodies in each patients’ serum sample, according to their working algorithm. Thus, almost 680 total complete patient reports were obtained, and the number of results from different autoantibody detection techniques was >3000. Up to eight different working algorithms were employed, including indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFA) and antigen-specific techniques (AgST). The IFA of HEp-2 cells was more sensitive than IFA of rat triple tissue for the study of anti-nuclear autoantibodies (ANA) associated with AILD. The IFA of a human neutrophil study for the analysis of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies was not carried out systemically in all patients, or by all laboratories. AgSTs were the most sensitive methods for the detection of anti-smooth muscle/F-actin, soluble liver antigen, liver cytosol-1, M2-mitochondrial autoantibodies, and ANA associated with primary biliary cholangitis. The main differences in AMA detection were due to patients with autoantibodies against the non-dominant epitope of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. Given that they are complementary, IFA and AgST should be performed in parallel. If there is high suspicion of AILD, AgST should always be performed.

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.

The antinuclear antibody HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay: a survey of laboratory performance, pattern recognition and interpretation

Background

To evaluate the interpretation and reporting of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 substrates based on common practice and guidance by the International Consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP).

Method

Participants included two groups [16 clinical laboratories (CL) and 8 in vitro diagnostic manufacturers (IVD)] recruited via an email sent to the Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (AMLI) membership. Twelve (n = 12) pre-qualified specimens were distributed to participants for testing, interpretation and reporting HEp-2 IFA. Results obtained were analyzed for accuracy with the intended and consensus response for three main categorical patterns (nuclear, cytoplasmic and mitotic), common patterns and ICAP report nomenclatures. The distributions of antibody titers of specimens were also compared.

Results

Laboratories differed in the categorical patterns reported; 8 reporting all patterns, 3 reporting only nuclear patterns and 5 reporting nuclear patterns with various combinations of other patterns. For all participants, accuracy with the intended response for the categorical nuclear pattern was excellent at 99% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97–100%] compared to 78% [95% CI 67–88%] for the cytoplasmic, and 93% [95% CI 86%–100%] for mitotic patterns. The accuracy was 13% greater for the common nomenclature [87%, 95% CI 82–90%] compared to the ICAP nomenclature [74%, 95% CI 68–79%] for all participants. Participants reporting all three main categories demonstrated better performances compared to those reporting 2 or less categorical patterns. The average accuracies varied between participant groups, however, with the lowest and most variable performances for cytoplasmic pattern specimens. The reported titers for all specimens varied, with the least variability for nuclear patterns and most titer variability associated with cytoplasmic patterns.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated significant accuracy for all participants in identifying the categorical nuclear staining as well as traditional pattern assignments for nuclear patterns. However, there was less consistency in reporting cytoplasmic and mitotic patterns, with implications for assigning competencies and training for clinical laboratory personnel.

Standardization and Quality Assessment Under the Perspective of Automated Computer-Assisted HEp-2 Immunofluorescence Assay Systems

The recent availability of automated computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems for the reading and interpretation of the anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) test performed with the indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) method on HEp-2 cells, has improved the reproducibility of the results and initiated a process of harmonization of this test. Furthermore, CAD systems provide quantitative expression of fluorescence intensity, allowing the introduction of objective quality control procedures to the monitoring of the entire process. The calibration of the reading systems and the automated image interpretation are essential prerequisites for obtaining reproducible and harmonized IIF test results and form the basis for standardization, regardless of the computer algorithms used in the different systems. The use of automated CAD systems, facilitating control procedures, represents a step forward for the quality certification of the laboratory.

Current laboratory and clinical practices in reporting and interpreting anti-nuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescence (ANA IIF) patterns: results of an international survey

Background

The International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Patterns (ICAP) has recently proposed nomenclature in order to harmonize ANA indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) pattern reporting. ICAP distinguishes competent-level from expert-level patterns. A survey was organized to evaluate reporting, familiarity, and considered clinical value of ANA IIF patterns.

Methods

Two surveys were distributed by European Autoimmunity Standardization Initiative (EASI) working groups, the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) and UK NEQAS to laboratory professionals and clinicians.

Results

438 laboratory professionals and 248 clinicians from 67 countries responded. Except for dense fine speckled (DFS), the nuclear competent patterns were reported by > 85% of the laboratories. Except for rods and rings, the cytoplasmic competent patterns were reported by > 72% of laboratories.

Cytoplasmic IIF staining was considered ANA positive by 55% of clinicians and 62% of laboratory professionals, with geographical and expertise-related differences.

Quantification of fluorescence intensity was considered clinically relevant for nuclear patterns, but less so for cytoplasmic and mitotic patterns. Combining IIF with specific extractable nuclear antigens (ENA)/dsDNA antibody testing was considered most informative.

Of the nuclear competent patterns, the centromere and homogeneous pattern obtained the highest scores for clinical relevance and the DFS pattern the lowest. Of the cytoplasmic patterns, the reticular/mitochondria-like pattern obtained the highest scores for clinical relevance and the polar/Golgi-like and rods and rings patterns the lowest.

Conclusion

This survey confirms that the major nuclear and cytoplasmic ANA IIF patterns are considered clinically important. There is no unanimity on classifying DFS, rods and rings and polar/Golgi-like as a competent pattern and on reporting cytoplasmic patterns as ANA IIF positive.