Search

Introduction: Commercial assays measuring antibodies to citrullinated protein/peptide (ACPA) show poor quantitative agreement. The diagnostic industry has never adopted the International Union of Immunological Societies-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (IUIS-CDC) ACPA reference standard. Recently, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) prepared a new candidate ACPA standard (18/204). We evaluated both reference materials using different commercially available ACPA assays., Materials and Methods: This is an international study in which the NIBSC candidate ACPA standard and the IUIS-CDC ACPA reference material were analysed together with 398 diagnostic samples from individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and in 1073 individuals who did not have RA using nine commercial ACPA assays., Results: For both reference materials and samples from individuals with RA and individuals who did not have RA, there were large differences in quantitative ACPA results between assays. For most assays, values for the IUIS-CDC standard were lower than values for NIBSC 18/204 and the IUIS-CDC/NIBSC ratio was comparable for several, but not all assays. When NIBSC 18/204 was used as a calibrator, an improvement in alignment of ACPA results across several of the evaluated assays was obtained. Moreover, NIBSC 18/204 could align clinical interpretation for some but not all assays., Conclusion: Adoption of an international standard for ACPA determination is highly desirable. The candidate NIBSC 18/204 standard improved the standardisation and alignment of most ACPA assays and might therefore be recommended to be used as reference in commercial assays., Competing Interests: Competing interests: XB, LVH, GS and DS have received speaker fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific and have been a consultant for Thermo Fisher Scientific; BL and IH has received speaker fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. All participating diagnostic companies in-kind provided the ACPA assays and provided technical training and support:Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden; Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany; Svar Life Science, Malmö, Sweden; Immunodiagnostic Systems (IDS), Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Orgentec, Mainz, Germany; Abbott, Wiesbaden, Germany; Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, California, USA; and Siemens Healthineers, Sudbury, United Kingdom., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are integrated in the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performance of different RF and ACPA assays and to evaluate whether differences in performance impact RA classification., Methods: Samples from 594 consecutive patients who for the first time consulted a rheumatologist (44 of whom were diagnosed with RA) and 26 extra newly diagnosed patients with RA were analysed with six different RF assays (Menarini, Thermo Fisher, Inova, Roche, Abbott, Euroimmun) and seven different ACPA assays (Menarini, Thermo Fisher, Inova, Roche, Abbott, Euro Diagnostica, Euroimmun)., Results: We found differences in analytical performance between assays. There was poor numerical agreement between the different RF and ACPA assays. For all assays, the likelihood ratio for RA increased with increasing antibody levels. The areas under the curve of receiver operating characteristic analysis of the RF (range 0.676-0.709) and ACPA assays (range 0.672-0.769) only differed between some ACPA assays. Nevertheless, using the cut-off proposed by the manufacturer, there was a large variation in sensitivity and specificity between assays (mainly for RF). Consequently, depending on the assay used, a subgroup of patients (13% for RF, 1% for ACPA and 9% for RF/ACPA) might or might not be classified as RA according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria., Conclusion: Due to poor harmonisation of RF and ACPA assays and of test result interpretation, RA classification according to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria may vary when different assays are used., Competing Interests: Competing interests: XB has received lecture fees from Thermo Fisher, Inova and Menarini and has been a consultant for Inova., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)