Comparison of the analytical and clinical performances of two different routine testing protocols for antinuclear antibody screening

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) is based on the detection of serum antinuclear antibodies (ANA) for which indirect im-munofluorescence (IIF) is the golden standard. New solid- phase immunoassays have been developed to be used alone or in combination with the detection of extractable antinuclear antibodies (ENA) to improve SARD diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performances of different ANA screening methods aloneor in combination with ENA screening methods for SARD diagnosis.Methods: A total of 323 patients were screened for ANA by IIF, EliA™ CTD Screen, and ELISA methods. Agreements were calculated between the methods. Then, EliA™ CTD Screen positive samples were screened for ENA by line immunoassay (LIA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA).Results: The diagnostic accuracy of EliA™ CTD Screen (79% sensitivity and 91% speci-ficity) was better than that of ELISA or IIF. The combination of EliA™ CTD plus IIF had the highest sensitivity (93%). ENA determination revealed that Ro52 and Ro60 were the most prevalent specificities. The use of IIF alone was not able of detecting up to 36% of samples positive for Ro52, and 41% for Ro60.Conclusions: EliA™ CTD Screen has a better diagnostic performance when compared to IIF and ELISA. The combined use of EliA™ CTD Screen and IIF clearly improves the rateand accuracy of SARD diagnosis. The use of EliA™ CTD Screen as first- line screeningtechnique allows the detection of antibodies, which could not be detected by IIF alone.