Comparison of autoantibody specificities tested by a line blot assay and immunoprecipitation-based algorithm in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies

Espinosa-Ortega, Fabricio; Holmqvist, Marie; Alexanderson, Helene; Storfors, Helena; Mimori, Tsuneyo; Lundberg, Ingrid E.; Rönnelid, Johan

doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214690

Cited by 71 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parallel detection of multiple MSAs by the LBA has advantages, considering the low prevalence of each MSA. In a study by Espinosa-Ortega et al [52], LBA was compared with immunoprecipitation among patients with myositis and showed a good correlation, except for the anti-TIF1γ antibody, for which LBA showed a lower sensitivity than immunoprecipitation. Moreover, LBA detected true positive anti-Jo1 samples that were missed by immunoprecipitation.…”

Section: Assays To Detect Msasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoantibody Biomarkers in Rheumatic Diseases

Kang

Lee

2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autoantibodies encountered in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases bear clinical significance as a biomarker to help or predict diagnosis, clinical phenotypes, prognosis, and treatment decision-making. Furthermore, evidence has accumulated regarding the active involvement of disease-specific or disease-associated autoantibodies in the pathogenic process beyond simple association with the disease, and such knowledge has become essential for us to better understand the clinical value of autoantibodies as a biomarker. This review will focus on the current update on the autoantibodies of four rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, systemic sclerosis, and anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis) where there has been a tremendous progress in our understanding on their biological effects and clinical use.

show abstract

Section: Assays To Detect Msasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoantibody Biomarkers in Rheumatic Diseases

Kang

Lee

2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although known for decades, very little data are available on the standardisation of anti-Ku antibodies. In a recent study, a kappa agreement of 0.86 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00) was found indicating weak-to-perfect agreement 6 7…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Anti-Ku antibodies: important points to consider

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Only recently have real-life studies on larger series of patients and using a larger panel of MSA-related antigens been published, highlighting on one side a great intra-method analytical variability of DIA/LIA in detecting MSA,5 and on the other side their weak correlation with IP 6. Considering the controversial data between Espinosa-Ortega’s1 and Cavazzana’s7 8 studies, it is emblematic that there is still no concordance among LIA and IP even for anti-Jo1, the most common MSA and the first discovered in this group of diseases. The low agreement of IP versus other methods, evidenced by recent studies,2 6 7 9 raises the question of whether IP should still be considered the reference method for detecting MSA.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%