poster ana´s
DESCRIPTION
Congreso Internacional de Autoinmunidad Slovenia 2009TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATION OF ANA SCREENING BY BIOPLEX™ 2200 AT THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL “12 DE OCTUBRE” (MADRID-SPAIN)
M. Talise1, M. Sevilla1, S. Lermo1, G. Badra2, L. Borque3, A. Serrano1 1Immunology Service, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 2University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, 3San Pedro Hospital, Logroño, Spain
INTRODUCTION
Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are autoantibodies that target nuclear
constituents of cells, such as the nuclear membrane, nucleoplasm,
nucleoli, and nuclear organelles. Measurement of ANA is extensively
used for diagnosing and monitoring various autoimmune diseases
such as systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome,
scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease, polymyositis and
dermatomyositis1. The traditional methods for detecting ANA are
indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on HEp-2 cell and enzyme
immunoassay (ELISA). A positive ANA screen leads to further
laboratory investigations on the presence of markers useful for
diagnosis of autoimmune diseases such as anti-dsDNA antibodies or
anti-extractable nuclear antigens (anti-ENA) antibodies. These
techniques are time-consuming, laborious and characterized by
frequent discrepancies between laboratories . We compare the
BioPlex™2200 ANA screen (by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA)
with IIF, ELISA SeraQuest® ANA screening and AtheNA Multi-lyte.
METHODOLOGY
We selected 500 serum samples randomly admitted to the
autoimmunity section during May and June 2009, these sera were
obtained from patients referred from primary care physicians, general
internists, rheumatologists and other subspecialties such as
nephrology, dermatology, etc. All samples were tested by indirect
immunofluorescence (IIF) on Hep-2 cell line substrate Bio-Rad Lab; by
enzyme immunoassay ELISA SeraQuest® ANA screening; AtheNA
Multi-lyte® ANA test system a multiplex fluorescent microsphere
immunoassay for the semi-quantitative of Ig G class antibody to 8
separate analytes (SSA, SSB, Sm, RNP, Scl-70, Jo-1, Centromere B, and
Histone and finally by BioPlex™2200 ANA screen (by Bio-Rad
Laboratories, Hercules, CA) a fully automated Luminex-based system
developed for analysis of 13 antibodies simultaneously in a primary
tube {SS-A (52, 60 kDa), SS-B, Sm, Sm/RNP, RNP-A, RNP-68, Scl70,
C e n t r o m e r e - B , d s D N A , c h r o m a t i n , J o 1 , r i b o s o m a l P } .
Immunofluorescence was considered positive from the dilution 1 / 80.
Table 1. ANA IIF Vs ANA Bioplex 2200 (N=500)
ANA Positive IIF Negative IIF Total
Positive Bioplex 2200
51 29 80
Negative Bioplex 2200
27 393 420
Total 78 422 500
Table 2. Athena Multi-lyte Vs Bioplex 2200 (N=500)
ANA Positive Athena
Negative Athena
Total
Positive Bioplex 2200
35 49 84
Negative Bioplex 2200
18 398 416
Total 53 447 500
RESULTS Five hundred patients samples were evaluated for presence of
autoantibodies ANA’s by four different assays IIF, ELISA, Athena
Multilyte and BioPlex™2200 obtaining a global concordance of 88.8%,
76.7% and 86.6%, respectively.
We observed 27 discrepancies: ANA positive IIF but ANA negative
by Bioplex 2200, of which discrepancies, 12 were false positives
for autoimmune diseases, 5 patients had rheumatoid arthritis, 3
patients lupus treated with corticosteroids, 2 autoimmune
hepatitis type I, 1 dermatomyositis, 1 Behcet's disease, 1
Sjögren's Sx, 1 tumido lupus; on the other hand we observed 29
ANA negative discrepancies by IIF but ANA positive by Bioplex,
these were 13 false negatives by IIF for autoimmune diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that BioPlexTM2200 has a good percentage of
concordance with the comparative method and represents a fast
solution, sensitive and specific for diagnosis of autoimmune
diseases.
REFERENCES
1. Tan EM. Antinuclear antibodies: diagnostic markers for autoimmune diseases and
probes for cell biology. Adv. Immunology. 1989. 44:93-151
2. Ulvestad E, Kanestrom A, Madland TM et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests for
antinuclear antibodies in rheumatological practice. Scand. J. Immunol. 2000. 52:309
The observed discrepancies may be due to different design and
nature of the antigens used in each method and maybe with slight
modifications in the cutoff point would ensure greater
consistency.-