Correspondence on ‘Standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’

Infantino, María; Manfredi, Mariangela; Bizzaro, Nicola

doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216217

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree with the notions made by Infantino et al 1 in their reply to our previously published report2 concerning the need for multicentre studies to obtain large enough number to validate new methods for detection of myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) and myositis-associated autoantibodies (MAA). We also agree with the suggestion to evaluate the possibility to individualise reference ranges (cut-off values) for the individual autoantibodies in multi-autoantibody assays like line immune assays (LIA).…”

supporting

confidence: 91%

Response to: ‘Comment on: standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’ by Infantino et al

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We agree with the notions made by Infantino et al 1 in their reply to our previously published report 2 concerning the need for multicentre studies to obtain large enough number to validate new methods for detection of myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) and myositis-associated autoantibodies (MAA). We also agree with the suggestion to evaluate the possibility to individualise reference ranges (cut-off values) for the individual autoantibodies in multi-autoantibody assays like line immune assays (LIA). In relation to such proposals, we would like to stress our experience that the same LIA might yield very quantitatively divergent results in different laboratories, for example, due to differences in laboratory temperature 3 but certainly also other factors, and that these quantitative differences may result in qualitatively divergent results. One way to help standardisation of laboratory results might be to include quantitative internal controls for the individual autoantibodies included in the LIAs, as we have discussed before. 4 Multicentre studies on the evaluation of LIAs or other methods for detection of MSA and MAA should preferably be combined with use of such common internal controls in the participating laboratories.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 91%

Response to: ‘Comment on: standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’ by Infantino et al

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent classification criteria for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies include autoantibodies for classification; the role of autoantibodies in inflammatory myopathies is growing [93]. However, their use for the diagnosis of inflammatory myositis is still a challenge, and further validation of these assays is needed [94].…”

Section: Myositis-specific Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoantibodies in central nervous system and neuromuscular autoimmune disorders: A narrative review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of novel autoantibodies in neurological disorders contributes to a better understanding of its pathogenesis, improves the accuracy of diagnosis, and leads to new treatment strategies. Advances in techniques for the screening and detection of autoantibodies have enabled the discovery of new antibodies in the central nervous system (CNS) and neuromuscular diseases. Cell-based assays using live or fixed cells overexpressing target antigens are widely used for autoantibody-based diagnosis in clinical practice. Common pathogenic autoantibodies are unknown in most patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Novel pathogenic autoantibodies to aquaporin-4 and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) have been identified in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and MOG antibody-associated disease, respectively. These diseases have clinical similarities to MS, but with the discovery of pathogenic autoantibodies, they are now recognized as distinct disease entities. Antibodies to paranodal membrane proteins such as neurofascin-155, contactin‑1, contactin‑associated protein‑1 in CIDP and muscle-specific kinase and low-density lipoprotein receptor–related protein 4 in myasthenia gravis were added to the profiles of autoantibodies in neurological disorders. Despite the relatively low frequency of seropositivity, autoantibody detection is currently essential for the clinical diagnosis of CNS and neuromuscular autoimmune disorders, and differential approaches to seropositive patients will contribute to more personalized medicine. We reviewed recent discoveries of autoantibodies and their clinical implications in CNS and neuromuscular disorders.

show abstract

Issues in autoantibody tests used in the classification criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases: the laboratory autoimmunologist's perspective

Bizzaro,

Mazzoni,

Carbone

et al. 2024

Autoimmunity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correspondence on ‘Standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Response to: ‘Comment on: standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’ by Infantino et al

Response to: ‘Comment on: standardisation of myositis-specific antibodies: where are we today?’ by Infantino et al

Autoantibodies in central nervous system and neuromuscular autoimmune disorders: A narrative review

Issues in autoantibody tests used in the classification criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases: the laboratory autoimmunologist's perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About