Affiliation:
1. McLendon Clinical Laboratories, University of North Carolina HealthCare
2. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine
3. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill
4. Great Smoky Mountain Diagnostics, Asheville, North Carolina
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Detection and specificity of autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a critical role in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune disease. Historically, the detection of these antibodies has employed double immunodiffusion (DID). Autoantibody specificity was correlated with diagnoses by this technique. Enzyme immunoassays have been developed by multiple manufacturers to detect and identify the specificity ENA autoantibodies. To address the relationship of ENA detection by DID and enzyme immunoassay, the performances of five immunoassays were compared. These included two DID and three enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISA) (both screening and individual antigen profile kits). The sample set included 83 ENA-positive, antinuclear-antibody (ANA)-positive specimens, 77 ENA-negative, ANA-positive specimens, and 20 ENA- and ANA-negative specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by two methods: first, by using the in-house DID result as the reference standard, and second, by using latent class analysis, which evaluates each kit result independently. Overall, the results showed that the ELISA methods were more sensitive for detection of ENA autoantibodies than DID techniques, but presence and/or specific type of ENA autoantibody did not always correlate with the patient's clinical presentation. Regardless of the testing strategy an individual laboratory uses, clear communication with the clinical staff regarding the significance of a positive result is imperative. The laboratory and the clinician must both be aware of the sensitivity and specificity of each testing method in use in the clinical laboratory.
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Subject
Microbiology (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Immunology,Immunology and Allergy
Reference24 articles.
1. Bizzaro, N., R. Tozzoli, E. Tonutti, A. Piazza, F. Manoni, A. Ghirardello, D. Bassetti, D. Villalta, M. Pradella, and P. Rizzotti. 1998. Variability between methods to determine ANA, anti-dsDNA and anti-ENA autoantibodies: a collaborative study with the biomedical industry. J. Immunol. Methods219:99-107.
2. Clark, G., M. Reichlin, and T. B. Tomasi, Jr. 1969. Characterization of a soluble cytoplasmic antigen reactive with sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Immunol.102:107-122.
3. Holman, H. R., H. R. Deicher, and H. G. Kunkel. 1959. The LE cell and the LE serum factors. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med.35:409-418.
4. Development of the Antinuclear and Anticytoplasmic Antibody Consensus Panel by the Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists
5. Kavanaugh, A., R. Tomar, J. Reveille, D. H. Solomon, H. A. Homburger, et al. 2000. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.124:71-81.
Cited by
27 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献