Comparative Study of a Novel Lateral Flow Rapid Test with Conventional Serological Test Systems for the Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniosis in Croatia and Brazil

Control of canine infections with Leishmania infantum (L. infantum), a major zoonotic disease in Brazil and southern Europe, is becoming increasingly important due to its close proximity to humans, the increasing import of dogs from endemic regions and the impact of climate change on vector spreading. Simple, rapid and reliable diagnostic tests are therefore needed to detect infected dogs. Here, we re-evaluated different serological methods for the diagnosis of canine leishmaniosis (CanL) in Croatia and Brazil. The diagnostic performance of the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) and the VetLine® Leishmania ELISA (GSD Frankfurt, Germany) was compared with three rKLi8.3-based diagnostic test systems, the rKLi8.3 ELISA (GSD Frankfurt, Germany), the INgezim® Leishma CROM (GSD Madrid, Spain) lateral flow test (LFT) and the VetBlot®Leishmania LineBlot (GSD Frankfurt, Germany). CanL symptomatic dogs were efficiently diagnosed by all tests, except the VetLine® Leishmania ELISA, which is based on whole Leishmania antigens. The advantage of rKLi8.3 was also observed in oligo- and asymptomatic dogs from Brazil and Croatia, although with reduced diagnostic efficiency compared to symptomatic dogs. Similar to IFAT and rKLi8.3 ELISA, the LFT did not cross-react with other common canine pathogens; it showed very high specificity for healthy dogs from endemic regions in both countries and did not react with healthy, vaccinated dogs in Brazil. In conclusion, serodiagnostic tests based on the rKLi8.3 antigens are superior to whole parasite antigens, and the LFT has the advantage of providing a laboratory-independent, rapid and specific diagnosis of CanL.

Immunoblot Criteria for Diagnosis of Lyme Disease: A Comparison of CDC Criteria to Alternative Interpretive Approaches

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) interpretive criteria for serodiagnosis of Lyme disease (LD) involve a two-tiered approach, consisting of a first-tier EIA, IFA, or chemiluminescent assay, followed by confirmation of positive or equivocal results by either immunoblot or a second-tier EIA. To increase overall sensitivity, single-tier alternative immunoblot assays have been proposed, often utilizing antigens from multiple Borrelia burgdorferi strains or genospecies in a single immunoblot; including OspA and OspB in their antigen panel; requiring fewer positive bands than permitted by current CDC criteria; and reporting equivocal results. Published reports concerning alternative immunoblot assays have used relatively small numbers of LD patients and controls to evaluate novel multi-antigen assays and interpretive criteria. We compared the two most commonly used alternative immunoblot interpretive criteria (labeled A and B) to CDC criteria using data from multiple FDA-cleared IgG and IgM immunoblot test kits. These single-tier alternative interpretive criteria, applied to both IgG and IgM immunoblots, demonstrated significantly more false-positive or equivocal results in healthy controls than two-tiered CDC criteria (12.4% and 35.0% for Criteria A and B, respectively, versus 1.0% for CDC criteria). Due to limited standardization and high false-positive rates, the presently evaluated single-tier alternative immunoblot interpretive criteria appear inferior to CDC two-tiered criteria.

Detection of Myositis Autoantibodies by Multi-Analytic Immunoassays in a Large Multicenter Cohort of Patients with Definite Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSAs) and myositis-associated autoantibodies (MAAs) for the assessment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) is acknowledged, but laboratory standardization remains a challenge. We detected MSAs/MAAs by multi-analytic line immunoassay (LIA) and particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) in a multicenter cohort of patients with IIMs.

METHODS

We tested the sera from 411 patients affected with definite IIM, including 142 polymyositis (PM), 147 dermatomyositis (DM), 19 cancer-associated myositis, and 103 overlap myositis syndrome (OM), and from 269 controls. MSAs/MAAs were determined by 16Ags LIA in all sera, and anti-HMGCR by ELISA in 157/411 IIM sera and 91/269 control sera. The analytical specificity of LIA/HMGCR ELISA was compared with that of PMAT in 89 MSA+ IIM sera.

RESULTS

MSAs/MAAs were positive in 307/411 (75%) IIM patients and 65/269 (24%) controls by LIA (Odds Ratio 9.26, 95% CI 6.43-13.13, p < 0.0001). The sensitivity/specificity of individual MSAs/MAAs were: 20%/100% (Jo-1), 3%/99.3% (PL-7), 4%/98.8% (PL-12), 1%/100% (EJ), 0.7%/100% (OJ), 9%/98% (SRP), 5.6%/99.6% (TIF1γ), 4.6%/99.6% (MDA5), 8%/96% (Mi-2), 1.5%/98% (NXP2), 1.7%/100% (SAE1), 4%/92% (Ku), 8.5%/99% (PM/Scl-100), 8%/96% (PM/Scl-75), and 25.5%/79% (Ro52). Anti-HMGCR was found in 8/157 (5%) IIM patients and 0/176 (0%) controls by ELISA (p = 0.007). Concordance between LIA/HMGCR ELISA and PMAT was found in 78/89 (88%) samples. Individual MSAs detected by LIA were associated with IIM subsets: Jo-1 with PM and OM, PL-12 with OM, Mi-2, TIF1γ, and MDA5 with DM, SRP with PM, and PM/Scl-75/100 with OM (p < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Since MSAs are mostly mutually exclusive, multi-specific antibody profiling seems effective for a targeted clinical-serologic approach to the diagnosis of IIMs.

ELISA, protein immunoprecipitation and line blot assays for anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibody detection in cancer-associated dermatomyositis

OBJECTIVES

Anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibodies can be detected with immunoprecipitation (IP), line blot (LB) and ELISA. We compared assay performance in patients with DM and the potential of these assays to detect anti-TIF1-gamma positive cancer-associated DM (CADM).

METHODS

We included sera from 131 patients with DM followed at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden and 82 healthy controls. Serum samples taken at DM diagnosis were tested for anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibodies with IP, two ELISAs (in-house and commercial) and LB. Cancer diagnosis and dates were obtained from the Swedish national cancer register. CADM was defined as a malignancy that developed within 3 years of DM diagnosis.

RESULTS

Anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibodies were detected in 19/101 (18.8%), 15/113 (13.2%), 34/131 (26%) and 45/131 (34.4%) of the patients with IP, LB, in-house and commercial ELISA, respectively. The anti-TIF1-gamma results from the in-house ELISA were confirmed with IP in 93 of 101 (92%) cases, κ = 0.76, with a commercial ELISA in 110 of 131 (84%) cases, κ = 0.63, and with LB in 101 of 113 (89.3%) cases, κ = 0.67. Anti-TIF1-gamma results with IP were confirmed with LB in 85 of 92 (92.4%) cases, κ = 0.73. For detecting CADM, the anti-TIF1-gamma in-house ELISA had a sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 86%, the commercial ELISA had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 82%, IP had a sensitivity of 52% and specificity of 92%, LB had a sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 96%.

CONCLUSION

The two anti-TIF1-gamma ELISA assays had advantages both for autoantibody detection and to identify anti-TIF1-gamma-positive CADM.

Lack of standardisation in interpretation and reporting of autoantibody assays: a survey analysis of Australasian laboratories with focus on line immunoassays

Autoantibody assays are reported in a variety of formats. Results only slightly above established cut-offs provide lower likelihood ratios; therefore, their clinical significance may be more uncertain, which is not readily communicated with dichotomous qualitative reporting. Line immunoassays (LIA) are a common method for detecting antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) and myositis-associated antibodies. However, recommended positive cut-offs are contentious. We distributed a survey via e-mail to participants in the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program (RCPAQAP) Immunology modules and to a dedicated immunology mailing list in Australasia. Questions explored general viewpoints surrounding autoantibody reporting, as well as current laboratory practices, with particular focus on interpretation and reporting of the most commonly used ENA LIA manufactured by Euroimmun. There were 31 responders, representative of at least 17 unique laboratories across Australia (8 public, 5 private) and New Zealand (4 laboratories). Responses suggest that autoantibody reporting is not standardised; there was variation in general viewpoints and reporting practices, particularly regarding the interpretation of and positive cut-offs used for the Euroimmun ENA LIA, which were contrary to the manufacturer's guidelines in a majority of the responses. Interpretative qualitative reporting based on results from other investigations and the clinical history was a common theme. There is large variation in the reporting of autoantibody assays within Australasia, especially by LIA. A majority of respondents report the most commonly used ENA LIA contrary to manufacturer's guidelines; alternative positive cut-offs are commonly utilised. LIA reports should indicate the level of positivity to enhance their relevance in the clinical decision-making process.

The Diagnostic Value of Onconeural Antibodies Depends on How They Are Tested

Detection of onconeural antibodies is important because establishes a definitive diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurological syndrome (PNS). The recommended method for diagnosis of onconeural antibodies is by immunohistochemistry on rodent brain sections and confirmation of results by immunoblot. However, in many diagnostic laboratories samples are only tested with commercial line blots. In this study we inquired whether this change in diagnostic methodology (line blot alone vs. combined immunohistochemistry and line blot) would affect the results. Among 439 samples examined by immunohistochemistry and a commercial line blot (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) 96 (22%) were positive by line blot, and their clinical information was reviewed. Onconeural antibodies were detected by both assays in 46/96 (48%) patients (concordant group) whereas 50 (52%) were only positive by line blot (discordant group). In the concordant group 42/46 (91%) patients had a definite diagnosis of PNS whereas in the discordant group only 4/50 (8%) had PNS (p < 0.00001). None of the 14 patients with ZIC4 antibodies and 1/13 (8%) with Yo antibodies demonstrated only by line blot had PNS. These findings show a robust diagnostic value of combined diagnostic techniques, and both should be used to demonstrate onconeural antibodies, If antibody testing is performed only with line blot assay, positive bands should be confirmed by rodent brain immunohistochemistry. For ZIC4 or Yo antibody testing, line blot positivity with negative immunohistochemistry has no diagnostic significance, and for the rest of onconeural antibodies the predictive diagnostic value is low.

Caveats and Pitfalls of SOX1 Autoantibody Testing With a Commercial Line Blot Assay in Paraneoplastic Neurological Investigations

SOX1 autoantibodies are considered markers of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) and are usually determined by commercial line blot in many clinical services. Recent studies suggested that SOX1 autoantibodies also occur in patients with neuropathies unrelated to SCLC, questioning the value of SOX1 autoantibodies as paraneoplastic biomarkers. Here, we compared the specificity and sensitivity of a commercial line blot (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) with those of an in house cell-based assay (CBA) with HEK293 cells transfected with SOX1. Overall, 210 patients were included in the study, 139 patients with polyneuropathies without SCLC, and 71 with disorders associated with SOX1 autoantibodies detected with the in-house CBA. Forty one of these 71 cases had been referred to our laboratory for onconeuronal antibody assessment and 30/71 were patients with known PNS and SCLC. None of the patients with polyneuropathies had SOX1 autoantibodies by either line blot or CBA (specificity of the immunoblot: 100%; 95%C.I.: 97.8-100). Among the 71 patients with CBA SOX1 autoantibodies, only 53 were positive by line blot (sensitivity: 74.6%; 95%C.I.: 62.9-84.2). Lung cancer was detected in 37/41 (90%; 34 with SCLC) patients referred for onconeuronal antibody assessment and 34 of them also had a PNS. Our study confirms the association of SOX1 autoantibodies with SCLC and PNS. The line blot test misses 25% of the cases; therefore, to minimize the frequency of false negative results we recommend the use of a confirmatory test, such as CBA, in patients suspected to have a SCLC-related PNS.