Search

Objective: To improve myasthenia gravis (MG) autoantibody testing., Methods: MG serologic tests with confirmatory or refuting clinical-electrodiagnostic (EDX) testing and cancer evaluations were reviewed over 4 years (2012-2015). All patients had acetylcholine receptor-binding (AChR-Bi), modulating (AChR-Mo), and striational (STR) autoantibody testing, and negatives reflexed to muscle-specific kinase (MuSK). Thymoma and cancer occurrences were correlated with STR and reflexed glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65), ganglionic acetylcholine receptor (α3), collapsin response mediating protein-5, and voltage-gated potassium channel complex autoantibodies., Results: Of 433 samples tested, 133 (31%) met clinical-EDX criteria for MG. Best sensitivity (90%) occurred at AChR-Bi >0.02 nmol/L, leaving 14 negative (6 ocular MG, 7 generalized MG, 1 MuSK MG) with specificity 90% (31 false-positives). Using AChR-Mo antibodies (>20% loss), specificity was better (92%, 24 false-positives), but sensitivity dropped (85%). Specificity improved (95%) by testing AChR-Mo when AChR-Bi are positive, resulting in 45% reduction of false-positives (31-17), maintaining AChR-Bi 90% sensitivity. Cutoff values recommended by area under the curve analysis did not outperform this approach. AChR-Bi and AChR-Mo values were significantly higher in true-positives. CT evaluations in 121 MG samples revealed 16 thymomas. Historical or subsequent cancers occurred in 22. STR and reflexed autoantibodies were not more common in MG with thymoma or other cancers. Full-body CT (n = 34) was performed in those with STR and reflex autoantibody positivity, but without additional cancers found., Conclusion: Accuracy of MG serologic testing is improved by reflexing AChR-Bi-positive cases to AChR-Mo. STR and other reflexed cancer evaluation autoantibodies did not provide value beyond standard CT chest imaging at the time of MG diagnosis. Diagnostic certainty is informed by AChR-Bi and AChR-Mo with higher values increasing specificity., (© 2020 American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: To determine frequencies, interlaboratory reproducibility, clinical ratings, and prognostic implications of neural antibodies in a routine laboratory setting in patients with suspected neuropsychiatric autoimmune conditions., Methods: Earliest available samples from 10,919 patients were tested for a broad panel of neural antibodies. Sera that reacted with leucine-rich glioma-inactivated protein 1 (LGI1), contactin-associated protein-2 (CASPR2), or the voltage-gated potassium channel (VGKC) complex were retested for LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies by another laboratory. Physicians in charge of patients with positive antibody results retrospectively reported on clinical, treatment, and outcome parameters., Results: Positive results were obtained for 576 patients (5.3%). Median disease duration was 6 months (interquartile range 0.6-46 months). In most patients, antibodies were detected both in CSF and serum. However, in 16 (28%) patients with N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antibodies, this diagnosis could be made only in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The two laboratories agreed largely on LGI1 and CASPR2 antibody diagnoses (κ = 0.95). The clinicians (413 responses, 71.7%) rated two-thirds of the antibody-positive patients as autoimmune. Antibodies against the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor (AMPAR), NMDAR (CSF or high serum titer), γ-aminobutyric acid-B receptor (GABABR), and LGI1 had ≥ 90% positive ratings, whereas antibodies against the glycine receptor, VGKC complex, or otherwise unspecified neuropil had ≤ 40% positive ratings. Of the patients with surface antibodies, 64% improved after ≥ 3 months, mostly with ≥ 1 immunotherapy intervention., Conclusions: This novel approach starting from routine diagnostics in a dedicated laboratory provides reliable and useful results with therapeutic implications. Counseling should consider clinical presentation, demographic features, and antibody titers of the individual patient.

Autoantibodies against double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) were first described >60 years ago and although they are still one of the most clinically relevant autoantibodies, test results may be more challenging to interpret compared to other autoantibody tests. They are a serological hallmark of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and are included in both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) classification criteria for SLE. Furthermore, anti-dsDNA antibodies (a-dsDNA) have been shown to associate with SLE disease activity and coincide with renal involvement. Given their importance and long history, one might assume that immunological tests for a-dsDNA are standardized and give comparable results. However, even though there has been an international reference standard serum (the WHO Wo/80), different methods for the detection of a-dsDNA and tests from different manufacturers give different results for the same samples. This disparity is due to the diversity of possible antibodies generated to this biochemically complex antigen, which may have different clinical associations. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the clinical associations with a-dsDNA, highlight challenges in a-dsDNA testing, and elucidate the reasons for discrepant results between methods or manufacturers., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Progress in the laboratory diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SRAD) is caused by the ever increasing clinical introduction of new highly productive methods for immune analysis using computer-aided systems and multiplex proteomic technologies. The urgent problem in the laboratory diagnosis of SRAD is the standardization of current methods for the detection of autoantibodies (autoAb), including the preparation of international reference materials for the calibration and external quality assessment of immunological assay. New autoAb technologies have a higher analytical validity than the previously used classical techniques immunodiffusion, agglutination, and immunofluorescence; however, their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for SRAD have been poorly studied. Particular emphasis is laid on the standardization of the methods for examining antinuclear antibodies (ANAb), the major serologic marker of SRAD. According to the EULAR/ACR guidelines, indirect immunofluorescence reaction (IIFR) using human HEp-2 cells as substrate is the gold standard and a primary screening ANAb method. New methods for solid-phase analysis (enzyme immunoassay, multiplex test systems, etc.) cannot substitute the primary screening of ANAb using IIFR-HEp-2 as they identify antibodies to the limited number of antigens, increasing the number of false- negative results. The computer-aided systems for interpreting cell fluorescence tests contribute to the standardization and enhancement of the efficiency of detection of ANAb and other autoAb by IIFR. The use of complex diagnostic indices based on the multiparametric analysis of laboratory biomarkers in the serum makes it possible to most fully and objectively assess complex molecular mechanisms for the pathogenesis of SRAD, thus radically improving the early diagnosis, the estimation of the activity and severity of disease, the prediction of the outcomes of a pathological process and the response to treatment.

Background: TSH receptor antibodies (TRAb) are the diagnostic hallmark of Graves' disease (GD) and immunoassays for their detection have been available for more than 30 years over three generations of laboratory methods. Despite a growing body of data produced by clinical and laboratory research which demonstrates its elevated sensitivity and specificity, TRAb testing is poorly used for diagnosing GD. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to verify the diagnostic performance of TRAb detected with 2nd and 3rd generation immunoassay methods., Methods: We searched for English articles using MEDLINE with the search terms "TSH receptor antibody assay", "TSH Receptor antibody tests" and "Graves' disease". We analyzed studies reporting on TSH receptor antibody tests performed by quantitative immunoassays, on untreated patients with GD as the index disease (sensitivity) and on a control group of either healthy subjects or patients affected by other thyroid diseases (specificity). A total of 681 titles were initially identified with the search strategy described. 560 publications were excluded based on abstract and title. Full-text review was undertaken as the next step on 111 publications providing data on TRAb testing; 58 articles were subsequently excluded because they did not include untreated GD patients, or used either bioassays or 1st generation immunoassays. 32 were also excluded because they included data only on sensitivity or only on specificity of the assay, or were duplicates. Finally, 21 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Extraction of data from selected articles was performed by two authors independently, using predefined criteria: the number of patients with GD and the number of healthy or diseased controls; specification of the analytical method used to detect TRAb; sensitivity and specificity of the assay., Results: The meta-analysis showed that the overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 2nd and 3rd generation TRAb assays are 97.1% and 97.4%, and 98.3% and 99.2%, respectively, with little difference between the types of immunoassay methods employed (human or porcine receptor, manual or automated procedure). The likelihood of a TRAb-positive individual to have GD is 1367- to 3420-fold greater (depending upon the type of assay) compared to a TRAb-negative person., Conclusions: Data from the meta-analysis showed that TRAb measured with 2nd and 3rd generation immunoassay methods have very high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of GD. The difference between 2nd and 3rd generation methods is small and is equally useful. In contrast with recommendations made by clinical endocrinologists who are not familiar with the state of the art in diagnostic technologies of autoimmunology laboratories, we propose a wide application of these tests in clinical practice to screen all hyperthyroid patients., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Autoantibody detection assists in the diagnosis and allows differentiation of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) type 1 (AIH-1), characterized by antinuclear antibody (ANA) and/or smooth muscle antibody (SMA), and type 2 (AIH-2), distinguished by the presence of antibodies to liver-kidney microsome type 1 (anti-LKM1) and/or antibodies to liver cytosol type 1 (anti-LC1). Detection of atypical perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA) and anti-soluble liver antigen (SLA) antibodies can act as an additional pointer toward the diagnosis of AIH, particularly in the absence of the conventional autoantibodies. Routine autoantibody testing by indirect immunofluorescence has been recently complemented by molecular assays based on purified or recombinant antigens. Although the AIH-1-specific ANA and SMA targets need better definition, those of anti-LKM1 and anti-LC1 in AIH-2 have been clearly identified; the fine specificity of antibody reactivity and its clinical relevance to disease pathogenesis are the focus of ongoing investigation. This article critically discusses the current knowledge of the diagnostic and clinical significance of AIH-related autoantibody reactivities, focusing on key issues that the physician needs to be aware of to be able to request the appropriate testing and to interpret correctly the laboratory results within the clinical context of the patient., (Copyright Thieme Medical Publishers.)

The investigation of autoimmunity provides an interest challenge in "omics" research and, particularly, proteome research, as autoimmune diseases are common disorders of unsolved etiology that occur in a wide range of manifestations, in all of which tissues and organs are attacked by the body's own immune system. Autoantibodies are a hallmark of many autoimmune diseases and the presence of autoantibodies is a distinctive and key characteristic of autoimmune diseases. Conventionally, the study of autoimmune response has always been conducted by analysing the presence and/or concentration of individual antibodies in biological fluids. New proteomic techniques allow the simultaneous identification/measurement of different autoantibodies in sera of patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. The possibility of simultaneously measuring a number of correlated analytes appears to be very interesting for analytical reasons (reduced volumes of biological samples, reagents and low costs), logistical/managerial reasons, and pathophysiological reasons (combination of markers in disease-oriented or organ-oriented profiling). In particular, we describe data collected by using high-throughput techniques such as antigen microarrays and mass spectrometry for antibody profiling. While recently collected data demonstrate satisfactory analytical sensitivity and reproducibility, some issues such as standardization and data interpretation have to be solved before the introduction of these new and promising techniques into clinical practice.

Purpose: To review the current literature on the detection and measurement of antiretinal antibodies., Design: Collaborative essay., Methods: Literature review and interpretation., Results: There is strong evidence to suggest a role for antiretinal antibodies, particularly those targeting recoverin and alpha-enolase, in the pathogenesis of autoimmune retinopathy (AIR). Additionally, numerous other autoantibodies have been described as putative mediators of retinal degeneration and more remain to be discovered. However, assay methods described in the literature by many laboratories for the detection of circulating antiretinal antibodies have been varied and diverse, making it difficult to interpret and compare their results., Conclusions: There is currently little standardization of laboratory methods used to detect and monitor antiretinal antibodies. To measure and monitor levels of circulating antiretinal antibodies optimally in patients with AIR, development of standardized assays with stringent internal controls is required. A multicenter collaborative and validation effort is encouraged to reach a consensus on this issue.

The Italian Society of Laboratory Medicine Study Group on the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Diseases has generated a series of guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis and monitoring of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases intendedfor the use of clinical pathologists and laboratory physicians. These guidelines are based on a systematic review of published works and expert panel discussion and consist of 13 recommendations for antinuclear antibodies, anti-double-stranded native DNA, and antinuclear specific antibodies. To improve analytic performances and help select the most appropriate test for specific autoantibodies, as well as provide education and guidance in the use of these tests, special emphasis is placed on laboratory methods.

Objective: To develop a standardisable enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), using human filaggrin, for detection of antifilaggrin autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To compare the diagnostic performance of the ELISA with those of reference tests: "antikeratin antibodies" ("AKA"), and antibodies to human epidermis filaggrin detected by immunoblotting (AhFA-IB)., Methods: Two ELISAs were developed using either affinity purified neutral-acidic human epidermis filaggrin (AhFA-ELISA-pur) or a recombinant human filaggrin deiminated in vitro (AhFA-ELISA-rec) as immunosorbent. Antifilaggrin autoantibodies were assayed in 714 serum samples from patients with well characterised rheumatic diseases, including 241 RA and 473 other rheumatic diseases, using the two ELISAs. "AKA" and AhFA-IB tests were carried out in the same series of patients. The diagnostic performance of the four tests was compared and their relationships analysed., Results: The titres of "AKA", AhFA-IB, and the AhFA-ELISAs correlated strongly with each other. The diagnostic sensitivity of the AhFA-ELISA-rec, which was better than that of AhFA-ELISA-pur, was 0.52 for a specificity of 0.95. This performance was similar to those of "AKA" or AhFA-IB. However, combining AhFA-ELISA-rec with AhFA-IB led to a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.55 for a specificity of 0.99., Conclusion: A simple and easily standardisable ELISA for detection of antifilaggrin autoantibodies was developed and validated on a large series of patients using a citrullinated recombinant human filaggrin. The diagnostic performance of the test was similar to that of the "AKA" and AhFA-IB. Nevertheless, combining the AhFA-ELISA-rec with one of the other tests clearly enhanced the performance.

Considerable progress has been made in the improvement of clinical assays for the detection of autoantibodies to nuclear and intracellular antigens with the use of available World Health Organization (WHO) and Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control (AF/CDC) standards. The ultimate goal of standardization is for various clinical laboratory test results to be interchangeable and for an exchange of data to be done with confidence. This report discusses the available standards. In addition, significant technical problems and variations in methodologies for the detection of autoantibodies to intracellular antigens noted during a 4-year study by a European Consensus Study Group are detailed. Currently, there is a need for a future generation of reference preparations and standards that will show specific antibody reactivity on sensitive enzymes and immunoblotting assays. Standardization efforts should be done to characterize specific nuclear and cellular antigen preparations that may be of natural or of recombinant technology origin.