Objective. To determine the range of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in “healthy” individuals compared with that in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or soft tissue rheumatism (STR). Methods. Fifteen international laboratories experienced in performing tests for ANA by indirect immunofluorescence participated in analyzing coded sera from healthy individuals and from patients in the 5 different disease groups described above. Except for the stipulation that HEp‐2 cells should be used as substrate, each laboratory used its own in‐house methodology so that the data might be expected to reflect the output of a cross‐section of worldwide ANA reference laboratories. The sera were analyzed at 4 dilutions: 1:40, 1:80, 1:160, and 1:320. Results. In healthy individuals, the frequency of ANA did not differ significantly across the 4 age subgroups spanning 20–60 years of age. This putatively normal population was ANA positive in 31.7% of individuals at 1:40 serum dilution, 13.3% at 1:80, 5.0% at 1:160, and 3.3% at 1:320. In comparison with the findings among the disease groups, a low cutoff point at 1:40 serum dilution (high sensitivity, low specificity) could have diagnostic value, since it would classify virtually all patients with SLE, SSc, or SS as ANA positive. Conversely, a high positive cutoff at 1:160 serum dilution (high specificity, low sensitivity) would be useful to confirm the presence of disease in only a portion of cases, but would be likely to exclude 95% of normal individuals. Conclusion. It is recommended that laboratories performing immunofluorescent ANA tests should report results at both the 1:40 and 1:160 dilutions, and should supply information on the percentage of normal individuals who are positive at these dilutions. A low‐titer ANA is not necessarily insignificant and might depend on at least 4 specific factors. ANA assays can be a useful discriminant in recognizing certain disease conditions, but can create misunderstanding when the limitations are not fully appreciated.
Objective. To determine the performance characteristics of enzyme-based immunoassay (EIA) kits for the detection of antinuclear and other autoantibodies of defined specificities. Methods. Nine manufacturers of EIA kits to detect antibodies of defined specificities participated in a study in which they received coded sera from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These coded sera contained different dilutions of antibody of one specificity mixed with sera containing antibodies of other specificities. The manufacturers were asked to use their standard technology to determine antibody content and send the data to a committee of the International Union of Immunological Societies for analysis. The data were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity in the detection of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-single-stranded DNA, antihistone, anti-Sm, anti-U1 RNP, anti-SSA/Ro, anti-SSB/La, anti-Scl-70 (DNA topoisomerase I), anticentromere, and anti-Jo-1 antibodies. In addition, replicate samples were included in the coded sera to evaluate the precision of each EIA method. Results. Lack of sensitivity and specificity was most evident in the anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm kits, although 2 kits for anti-dsDNA achieved acceptable sensitivity and specificity. Generally, anti-SSA/Ro, anti-SSB/La, anti-Scl-70, anticentromere, and anti-Jo-1 kits performed well. Many false-positive results were obtained with a multiple myeloma serum containing cryo-precipitates, but multiple myeloma sera without cryo-precipitates presented no problem in the EIA system. Precision, based on evaluation of replicate samples, varied from very good to poor. Conclusion. No single manufacturer was clearly superior to others in terms of their products' overall
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.