Home Comparison of the clinical utility of the Elia CTD Screen to indirect immunofluorescence on Hep-2 cells
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Comparison of the clinical utility of the Elia CTD Screen to indirect immunofluorescence on Hep-2 cells

  • Christoph Robier EMAIL logo , Omid Amouzadeh-Ghadikolai , Mariana Stettin and Gerhard Reicht
Published/Copyright: December 17, 2015

Abstract

Background: We compared the Elia CTD Screen (ECS), a fluoroenzymeimmunoassay incorporating 17 human antinuclear antigens (ANA), with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on Hep-2 cells in order to determine the clinical utility of the ECS in additon to or without IIF.

Methods: We examined 1708 consecutive serum samples submitted for ANA testing using the ECS and IIF in parallel. Positive screen results were further examined by quantitative fluoroenzymeimmunoassays and/or immunoblots for antibody identification. The medical records were evaluated for systemic rheumatic disorders.

Results: Concordance between ECS and IIF was observed in 1344 (78.8%) samples. ECS had a better detection rate for anti-dsDNA, -SSA/Ro, -SSB/La, -U1RNP and -Jo-1 antibodies, whereas IIF was superior in the detection of anti-CENP-B antibodies as well as anti-histone, -nucleosome and -Pl-12 antibodies, which are not included in the ECS antigen panel. ECS had a 100% sensitivity for Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis and Sharp syndrome. The sensitivity for Sjögren’s syndrome was slightly higher for ESC than for IIF (94%). IIF had a higher diagnostic sensitivity for systemic lupus erythematosus, indeterminated connective tissue disease, Raynaud’s syndrome and limited scleroderma, compared to ESC (100% vs. 80%, 100 vs. 75%, 89 vs. 57%, 100 vs. 88.9%).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the ECS represents an appropriate diagnostic tool for ANA screening. However, since some antigens are not incorporated in the ECS panel, and some ANA can also be missed by IIF, sequential or parallel screening with ECS and IIF may be reasonable when the clinical suspicion for connective tissue disease is high.


Corresponding author: Christoph Robier, MD, Central Laboratory, Hospital of the Brothers of St. John of God, Graz, Bergstr. 27, 8020 Graz, Austria, Phone: +43 316 5989 26671, Fax: +43 316 5989 21505, E-mail: ; and Clinical Institute of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Graz, Austria

Acknowledgments

We thank Hannelore Kronawetter, Margot Pfeiffer, Claudia Schoberer, Michaela Schoberl, Rita Stocker, Barbara Haindl-Suppan, Sabine Hell, Birgit Schröttner, Silvia Seyfried, Renate Jauk and Maria Hofbauer from the Central Laboratory of the Hospital of the Brothers of St. John of God Graz for their excellent technical support.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: CR received a travel grant from Thermo Fisher Scientific.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Agmon-Levin N, Damoiseaux J, Kallenberg C, Sack U, Witte T, Herold M, et al. International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:17–23.10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203863Search in Google Scholar

2. Bernardini S, Infantino M, Bellincampi L, Nuccetelli M, Afeltra A, Iori R. Screening of antinuclear antibodies: comparison between enzyme immunoassay based on nuclear homogenates, purified or recombinant antigens and immunofluorescence assay. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42: 1155–60.10.1515/CCLM.2004.235Search in Google Scholar

3. Op De Beeck K, Vermeersch P, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Marien G, Blockmans D, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and by solid phase assay. Autoimmune Rev 2011;10:801–8.10.1016/j.autrev.2011.06.005Search in Google Scholar

4. Bossuyt X, Luyckx A. Antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens in antinuclear antibody-negative samples. Clin Chem 2005;51:2426–7.10.1373/clinchem.2005.058552Search in Google Scholar

5. Hoffman IE, Peene I, Veys EM, De Keyser F. Detection of specific antinuclear reactivities in patients with negative anti-nuclear antibody immunofluorescence screening tests. Clin chem 2002;48:2171–6.10.1093/clinchem/48.12.2171Search in Google Scholar

6. Gonzalez C, Guevara P, Alarcon I, Hernando M, Navajo JA, Gonzalez-Buitrago JM. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) screening by enzyme immunoassay with nuclear Hep-2 cell extract and recombinant antigens: analytical and clinical evaluation. Clin Biochem 2002;35:463–9.10.1016/S0009-9120(02)00342-9Search in Google Scholar

7. Sinclair D, Saas M, Williams D, Hart M, Goswami R. Can an ELISA replace immunofluorescence fort he detection of anti-nuclear antibodies? The routine use of anti-nuclear antibody screening ELISAs. Clin Lab 2007;53:183–91.Search in Google Scholar

8. Parker JC, Bunn CC. Sensitivity of the Phadia Elia connective tissue disease screen for less common disease-specific autoantibodies. J Clin Pathol 2011;64:631–3.10.1136/jcp.2010.084756Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Hira-Kazal R, Shea-Simonds P, Peacock JL, Maher J. How should a distict general hospital immunology service screen for anti-nuclear antibodies? An “in-the-field” audit. Clin Exp Immunol 2014;180:52–7.10.1111/cei.12556Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Bossuyt X, Fieuws S. Detection of antinuclear antibodies: added value of solid phase assay? Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:e10.10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204793Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Lopez-Hoyos M, Rodriguez-Valverde V, Martinez-Taboada V. Performance of antinuclear antibody connective tissue disease screen. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007;1109:322–9.10.1196/annals.1398.038Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Imboden J, Hellmann D, Stone J. CURRENT Rheumatology diagnosis and treatment, 2nd ed. USA: Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill, 2007:167.Search in Google Scholar

13. Silvy F, Bertin D, Bardin N, Auger I, Guzian MC, Mattei JP, et al. Antinuclear antibodies in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated or not with biologics. PLoSOne 2015;10:e0134218.10.1371/journal.pone.0134218Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2015-10-28
Accepted: 2015-11-11
Published Online: 2015-12-17
Published in Print: 2016-8-1

©2016 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorials
  3. Laboratory analytical quality – the process continues
  4. Measurement uncertainty – a revised understanding of its calculation and use
  5. Review
  6. Substrate-zymography: a still worthwhile method for gelatinases analysis in biological samples
  7. Opinion Papers
  8. Is the combination of trueness and precision in one expression meaningful? On the use of total error and uncertainty in clinical chemistry
  9. The problem with total error models in establishing performance specifications and a simple remedy
  10. Measurement uncertainty for clinical laboratories – a revision of the concept
  11. Uncertainty in measurement and total error – are they so incompatible?
  12. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  13. Using the hazard ratio to evaluate allowable total error in predictive measurands
  14. Performance of electrolyte measurements assessed by a trueness verification program
  15. Analytical interference by monoclonal immunoglobulins on the direct bilirubin AU Beckman Coulter assay: the benefit of unsuspected diagnosis from spurious results
  16. Preliminary probe of quality indicators and quality specification in total testing process in 5753 laboratories in China
  17. Analytical and clinical evaluation of the new Fujirebio Lumipulse®G non-competitive assay for 25(OH)-vitamin D and three immunoassays for 25(OH)D in healthy subjects, osteoporotic patients, third trimester pregnant women, healthy African subjects, hemodialyzed and intensive care patients
  18. Patient-performed extraction of faecal calprotectin
  19. Comparison of the clinical utility of the Elia CTD Screen to indirect immunofluorescence on Hep-2 cells
  20. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  21. Sex-related differences in the association of ghrelin levels with obesity in adolescents
  22. Gestation specific reference intervals for thyroid function tests in pregnancy
  23. Cancer Diagnostics
  24. SOX17 promoter methylation in plasma circulating tumor DNA of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
  25. Dopamine concentration in blood platelets is elevated in patients with head and neck paragangliomas
  26. Letters to the Editor
  27. Cancer dynamics and the success of cancer screening programs
  28. Mother’s instinct – a rare case of multiple test interferences due to heterophile antibodies
  29. Sigma metric or defects per million opportunities (DPMO): the performance of clinical laboratories should be evaluated by the Sigma metrics at decimal level with DPMOs
  30. A national survey of preanalytical handling of oral glucose tolerance tests in pregnancy
  31. Updating pregnancy diabetes guidelines: is (y)our laboratory ready?
  32. Low serum bilirubin values are associated with pulmonary embolism in a case-control study
  33. Effect of Hb H on HbA1c measurements as measured by IFCC reference method and affinity HPLC
  34. Adipocytes in venipunctures cause falsely elevated S-100B serum values
  35. Earlier detection of sepsis by Candida parapsilosis using three-dimensional cytographic anomalies on the Mindray BC-6800 hematological analyzer
  36. Theranos phenomenon – part 4: Theranos at an International Conference
Downloaded on 8.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2015-1051/html
Scroll to top button