Search

Serum anti-Ro60 is one the most frequently encountered autoantibodies in the diagnostic immunopathology laboratory and in clinical practice. A large variety of assays are available to detect this including the popular multiplex line immunoblot (IB) assay. We evaluated the analytical performance of the IB for anti-Ro60 detection, using the counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIEP) method as the 'gold standard'. We also undertook a survey of international laboratories, who use the IB, about their reporting practices for anti-Ro60. Using the manufacturer's reported cut-off of 15 units, the IB has an analytical sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 99.3% for anti-Ro60 detection. The optimal cut-off to balance sensitivity and specificity was determined to be 5 units with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 97.4%. Most laboratories use the manufacturer's specified cut-off (15 units) when determining a positive anti-Ro60 result. Whilst the commercial IB generally performs well, laboratorians need to be mindful of the limitations of IB in detecting antibodies that recognise conformational epitopes and what cut-offs they use. A vast majority of laboratories could potentially miss detection of this clinically important autoantibody., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)