3.8 Article

Comparison between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies

Journal

EINSTEIN-SAO PAULO
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

INST ISRAELITA ENSINO & PESQUISA ALBERT EINSTEIN
DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2020AO5132

Keywords

Autoimmune diseases; Autoantibodies; Antibodies; antineutrophil cytoplasmic; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Fluorescent antibody technique; indirect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence methods for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a routine clinical laboratory setting. Methods: A total of 227 samples were tested by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antigen specificity for antiproteinase 3 and antimyeloperoxidase. The proportions of positive samples were compared by McNemar hypotheses and agreement was described by Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Results: The agreement of the tests was 96.5%, and the Kappa coefficient obtained was 0.70 (95%Cl: 0.50-0.90; p<0.001). Considering indirect immunofluorescence as the gold standard, the sensitivity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 0.62 and the specificity was 0.99, with diagnostic accuracy in 96% of cases. Some samples were negative in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and positive in indirect immunofluorescence. This situation occurred in all immunofluorescence patterns, but particularly in atypical patterns. Two samples with antiproteinase 3 positivity were considered negative in indirect immunofluorescence. Conclusion: The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay had high specificity but lower sensitivity. The performance of indirect immunofluorescence increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the search for antiproteinase 3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may also add diagnostic power.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available