Clinical Performance of the Line Immunoassay, Digital Liquid Chip Method, and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for Detecting Specific Antinuclear Antibodies

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) against certain antigens are useful for identifying autoimmune disorders. Although new solid phase-based immunoassays have been developed for evaluating ANAs, the conventional line immunoassay (LIA) is commonly used in clinical practice. To compare the clinical performa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) Vol. 148; no. 5; pp. 566 - 572
Main Authors Su, Zhenzhen, Wang, Li, Gao, Xuedan, Huang, Zhuochun, Hu, Jing, Yang, Bin
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States College of American Pathologists 01.05.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) against certain antigens are useful for identifying autoimmune disorders. Although new solid phase-based immunoassays have been developed for evaluating ANAs, the conventional line immunoassay (LIA) is commonly used in clinical practice. To compare the clinical performance of 2 newly developed methods for detecting specific ANAs with LIA. Six hundred ninety-six serum samples were collected from 559 patients with autoimmune disease (AID) and 137 controls. The samples were screened by using the LIA, digital liquid chip method (DLCM), and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for specific ANAs. The agreement across assays and the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARDs) were evaluated. Almost perfect agreement was observed among all assays for anti-centromere protein B (κ = 0.85-0.97), anti-ribosome P (κ = 0.85-0.88), anti-SSA 52 (κ = 0.86-0.89), and anti-SSA 60 (κ = 0.89-0.91); moderate to substantial agreement was detected for the autoantibodies against Sm, Jo-1, ribonucleoprotein, Scl-70, and SSB (κ = 0.55-0.80). LIA exhibited better sensitivity for diagnosing AARDs, while DLCM and CLIA demonstrated higher specificity. In the subset of AIDs, especially systemic lupus erythematosus, antibody positive percentages varied greatly between assays. The 3 assays showed comparable qualitative agreement; however, the standardization of testing for ANAs remains challenging owing to intermanufacturer variations. Moreover, DLCM and CLIA exhibited better specificity in distinguishing non-AID individuals, whereas LIA was more sensitive in diagnosing AARDs.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0003-9985
1543-2165
1543-2165
DOI:10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA