Clinical Performance of the Line Immunoassay and Digital Liquid Chip Method for Detecting Autoimmune Liver Disease Autoantibodies.

Heye Lv, Ao Deng, Yijun Chen, Zhenzhen Su
{"title":"Clinical Performance of the Line Immunoassay and Digital Liquid Chip Method for Detecting Autoimmune Liver Disease Autoantibodies.","authors":"Heye Lv, Ao Deng, Yijun Chen, Zhenzhen Su","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0057-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The identification of autoantibodies associated with autoimmune liver disease (ALD) is crucial for diagnosis and management. Various laboratory methods have been introduced to detect autoantibody profiles. However, the variable performance of these assays may create challenges for clinicians and patients.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To investigate the concordance rates and diagnostic performance of 2 commercially available assays, line immunoassay (LIA) and digital liquid chip method (DLCM), in patients with ALD.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>A total of 291 serum samples were collected, consisting of 180 sera from patients with ALD and 111 sera from controls. The samples were detected through LIA and DLCM. The agreement and diagnostic performance of each assay were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>There was substantial to almost perfect agreement among prevalent autoantibodies (anti-mitochondrial antibody M2, antibodies against gp210, Sp100, and Ro52). Nevertheless, the Cohen κ coefficient of some uncommon autoantibodies (anti-LKM-1, anti-LC-1, and anti-SLA/LP) between the 2 methods was not ideal. LIA showed slightly better sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value, while DLCM exhibited slightly higher specificity and positive predictive value.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>LIA and DLCM demonstrated comparable performance for the detection of common ALD-related autoantibodies. LIA seemed to be more sensitive, while DLCM displayed more specificity. However, standardization of ALD autoantibody detection still faces challenges between these diverse detection systems. Comprehensive interlaboratory validation is essential to mitigate potential misunderstanding and confusion among patients and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0057-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: The identification of autoantibodies associated with autoimmune liver disease (ALD) is crucial for diagnosis and management. Various laboratory methods have been introduced to detect autoantibody profiles. However, the variable performance of these assays may create challenges for clinicians and patients.

Objective.—: To investigate the concordance rates and diagnostic performance of 2 commercially available assays, line immunoassay (LIA) and digital liquid chip method (DLCM), in patients with ALD.

Design.—: A total of 291 serum samples were collected, consisting of 180 sera from patients with ALD and 111 sera from controls. The samples were detected through LIA and DLCM. The agreement and diagnostic performance of each assay were analyzed.

Results.—: There was substantial to almost perfect agreement among prevalent autoantibodies (anti-mitochondrial antibody M2, antibodies against gp210, Sp100, and Ro52). Nevertheless, the Cohen κ coefficient of some uncommon autoantibodies (anti-LKM-1, anti-LC-1, and anti-SLA/LP) between the 2 methods was not ideal. LIA showed slightly better sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value, while DLCM exhibited slightly higher specificity and positive predictive value.

Conclusions.—: LIA and DLCM demonstrated comparable performance for the detection of common ALD-related autoantibodies. LIA seemed to be more sensitive, while DLCM displayed more specificity. However, standardization of ALD autoantibody detection still faces challenges between these diverse detection systems. Comprehensive interlaboratory validation is essential to mitigate potential misunderstanding and confusion among patients and clinicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
线性免疫测定和数字液体芯片法检测自身免疫性肝病自身抗体的临床表现
背景鉴定与自身免疫性肝病(ALD)相关的自身抗体对于诊断和治疗至关重要。目前已有多种实验室方法用于检测自身抗体谱。然而,这些检测方法的性能参差不齐,可能会给临床医生和患者带来挑战:研究线性免疫分析法(LIA)和数字液体芯片法(DLCM)这两种市售检测方法在 ALD 患者中的一致性和诊断性能:共收集了 291 份血清样本,其中 180 份来自 ALD 患者,111 份来自对照组。样本通过 LIA 和 DLCM 进行检测。对每种检测方法的一致性和诊断性能进行了分析:主要自身抗体(抗线粒体抗体 M2、抗 gp210、抗 Sp100 和抗 Ro52 抗体)之间的一致性非常好,甚至几乎完全一致。然而,两种方法对一些不常见的自身抗体(抗LKM-1、抗LC-1和抗SLA/LP)的Cohen κ系数并不理想。LIA的灵敏度、准确性和阴性预测值略高,而DLCM的特异性和阳性预测值略高:结论:LIA 和 DLCM 在检测常见的 ALD 相关自身抗体方面表现不相上下。LIA似乎更灵敏,而DLCM显示出更高的特异性。然而,这些不同检测系统之间的 ALD 自身抗体检测标准化仍面临挑战。为了减少患者和临床医生可能产生的误解和混淆,全面的实验室间验证至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Laboratorian Interpretation of Drug Testing Results in Pain Management: Lessons From College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing. Clot Waveform Analysis: From Hypercoagulability to Hypocoagulability: A Review. Digital Pathology in the Detection of Infectious Microorganisms: An Evaluation of Its Strengths and Weaknesses Across a Panel of Immunohistochemical and Histochemical Stains Routinely Used in Diagnostic Surgical Pathology. Evaluation of a Deep Learning Model for Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma Prediction From Whole Slide Images. Fumarate Hydratase-Deficient Renal Cell Carcinoma With Predominant Tubulocystic Features Mimics Tubulocystic Renal Cell Carcinoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1