检测特异性抗核抗体的线性免疫测定法、数字液体芯片法和化学发光免疫测定法的临床表现。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA
Zhenzhen Su, Li Wang, Xuedan Gao, Zhuochun Huang, Jing Hu, Bin Yang
{"title":"检测特异性抗核抗体的线性免疫测定法、数字液体芯片法和化学发光免疫测定法的临床表现。","authors":"Zhenzhen Su, Li Wang, Xuedan Gao, Zhuochun Huang, Jing Hu, Bin Yang","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) against certain antigens are useful for identifying autoimmune disorders. Although new solid phase-based immunoassays have been developed for evaluating ANAs, the conventional line immunoassay (LIA) is commonly used in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical performance of 2 newly developed methods for detecting specific ANAs with LIA.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Six hundred ninety-six serum samples were collected from 559 patients with autoimmune disease (AID) and 137 controls. The samples were screened by using the LIA, digital liquid chip method (DLCM), and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for specific ANAs. The agreement across assays and the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARDs) were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Almost perfect agreement was observed among all assays for anti-centromere protein B (κ = 0.85-0.97), anti-ribosome P (κ = 0.85-0.88), anti-SSA 52 (κ = 0.86-0.89), and anti-SSA 60 (κ = 0.89-0.91); moderate to substantial agreement was detected for the autoantibodies against Sm, Jo-1, ribonucleoprotein, Scl-70, and SSB (κ = 0.55-0.80). LIA exhibited better sensitivity for diagnosing AARDs, while DLCM and CLIA demonstrated higher specificity. In the subset of AIDs, especially systemic lupus erythematosus, antibody positive percentages varied greatly between assays.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 3 assays showed comparable qualitative agreement; however, the standardization of testing for ANAs remains challenging owing to intermanufacturer variations. Moreover, DLCM and CLIA exhibited better specificity in distinguishing non-AID individuals, whereas LIA was more sensitive in diagnosing AARDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8305,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"566-572"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance of the Line Immunoassay, Digital Liquid Chip Method, and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for Detecting Specific Antinuclear Antibodies.\",\"authors\":\"Zhenzhen Su, Li Wang, Xuedan Gao, Zhuochun Huang, Jing Hu, Bin Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) against certain antigens are useful for identifying autoimmune disorders. Although new solid phase-based immunoassays have been developed for evaluating ANAs, the conventional line immunoassay (LIA) is commonly used in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical performance of 2 newly developed methods for detecting specific ANAs with LIA.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Six hundred ninety-six serum samples were collected from 559 patients with autoimmune disease (AID) and 137 controls. The samples were screened by using the LIA, digital liquid chip method (DLCM), and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for specific ANAs. The agreement across assays and the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARDs) were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Almost perfect agreement was observed among all assays for anti-centromere protein B (κ = 0.85-0.97), anti-ribosome P (κ = 0.85-0.88), anti-SSA 52 (κ = 0.86-0.89), and anti-SSA 60 (κ = 0.89-0.91); moderate to substantial agreement was detected for the autoantibodies against Sm, Jo-1, ribonucleoprotein, Scl-70, and SSB (κ = 0.55-0.80). LIA exhibited better sensitivity for diagnosing AARDs, while DLCM and CLIA demonstrated higher specificity. In the subset of AIDs, especially systemic lupus erythematosus, antibody positive percentages varied greatly between assays.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 3 assays showed comparable qualitative agreement; however, the standardization of testing for ANAs remains challenging owing to intermanufacturer variations. Moreover, DLCM and CLIA exhibited better specificity in distinguishing non-AID individuals, whereas LIA was more sensitive in diagnosing AARDs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"566-572\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2022-0331-OA","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:针对某些抗原的抗核抗体(ANAs)有助于鉴别自身免疫性疾病。尽管目前已开发出新的固相免疫测定法来评估 ANA,但传统的线性免疫测定法(LIA)在临床实践中仍被普遍使用:比较两种新开发的检测特异性 ANA 的方法与 LIA 的临床性能:从 559 名自身免疫性疾病 (AID) 患者和 137 名对照组患者中采集了 696 份血清样本。采用 LIA、数字液体芯片法 (DLCM) 和化学发光免疫分析法 (CLIA) 对样本进行了特异性 ANA 筛选。评估了各种检测方法之间的一致性以及每种检测方法在诊断 ANA 相关风湿性疾病(AARDs)方面的临床表现:结果:在抗中心粒蛋白B(κ = 0.85-0.97)、抗核糖体P(κ = 0.85-0.88)、抗SSA 52(κ = 0.86-0.89)和抗SSA 60(κ = 0.89-0.91)方面,所有检测方法几乎完全一致;在抗Sm、Jo-1、核糖核蛋白、Scl-70和SSB的自身抗体(κ = 0.55-0.80)方面,检测结果基本一致。LIA 在诊断 AARDs 方面表现出更高的灵敏度,而 DLCM 和 CLIA 则表现出更高的特异性。在艾滋病子集中,尤其是系统性红斑狼疮,不同检测方法的抗体阳性率差异很大:结论:三种检测方法显示出相似的定性一致性;然而,由于生产商之间的差异,ANA 检测的标准化仍具有挑战性。此外,DLCM 和 CLIA 在区分非艾滋病患者方面表现出更好的特异性,而 LIA 在诊断 AARDs 方面更为敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical Performance of the Line Immunoassay, Digital Liquid Chip Method, and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for Detecting Specific Antinuclear Antibodies.

Context: Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) against certain antigens are useful for identifying autoimmune disorders. Although new solid phase-based immunoassays have been developed for evaluating ANAs, the conventional line immunoassay (LIA) is commonly used in clinical practice.

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of 2 newly developed methods for detecting specific ANAs with LIA.

Design: Six hundred ninety-six serum samples were collected from 559 patients with autoimmune disease (AID) and 137 controls. The samples were screened by using the LIA, digital liquid chip method (DLCM), and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for specific ANAs. The agreement across assays and the clinical performance of each assay in diagnosing ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARDs) were evaluated.

Results: Almost perfect agreement was observed among all assays for anti-centromere protein B (κ = 0.85-0.97), anti-ribosome P (κ = 0.85-0.88), anti-SSA 52 (κ = 0.86-0.89), and anti-SSA 60 (κ = 0.89-0.91); moderate to substantial agreement was detected for the autoantibodies against Sm, Jo-1, ribonucleoprotein, Scl-70, and SSB (κ = 0.55-0.80). LIA exhibited better sensitivity for diagnosing AARDs, while DLCM and CLIA demonstrated higher specificity. In the subset of AIDs, especially systemic lupus erythematosus, antibody positive percentages varied greatly between assays.

Conclusions: The 3 assays showed comparable qualitative agreement; however, the standardization of testing for ANAs remains challenging owing to intermanufacturer variations. Moreover, DLCM and CLIA exhibited better specificity in distinguishing non-AID individuals, whereas LIA was more sensitive in diagnosing AARDs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Welcome to the website of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine (APLM). This monthly, peer-reviewed journal of the College of American Pathologists offers global reach and highest measured readership among pathology journals. Published since 1926, ARCHIVES was voted in 2009 the only pathology journal among the top 100 most influential journals of the past 100 years by the BioMedical and Life Sciences Division of the Special Libraries Association. Online access to the full-text and PDF files of APLM articles is free.
期刊最新文献
New Entities and Concepts in Salivary Gland Tumor Pathology: The Role of Molecular Alterations. Update on Sinonasal Tract Malignancies: Advances in Diagnostic Modalities. Update on Salivary Gland Fine-Needle Aspiration and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. BRAF Exon 15 Mutations in the Evaluation of Well-Differentiated Epithelial Nephroblastic Neoplasms in Children: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group Study AREN03B2. Neoplastic Progression in Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of the Bile Duct.
×
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