Variability in Testing for Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program

Abstract

Context.-Variability in testing for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCAs) contributes to confusion and controversy related to testing for vasculitis and other ANCA-associated diseases.Objectives.-To survey laboratory testing practices regarding ANCA testing and to investigate differences in testing algorithms.Design.-Supplemental questions were sent to the 333 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing program for ANCA as part of the Special Immunology S2 Survey.Results.-A total of 315 laboratories submitted responses to the supplemental questions. Only 88 of 315 participants (28%) reported using a combination of indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) techniques as recommended by current guidelines, with a few additional labs using IFA and multiplex bead assay as an acceptable alternative to EIA. Other labs reported using only IFA, EIA, or multiplex bead assays.Conclusions.-A wide variety of testing algorithms are in use for ANCA testing despite evidence to suggest that a combination of IFA and EIA testing provides the most comprehensive information. Laboratories should inform clinicians clearly about testing practices and utility of testing in specific disease states.