4.7 Article

Detection and identification of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large and consecutive cohort of serum samples referred for ANA testing

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 60, Issue 12, Pages 1131-1136

Publisher

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.60.12.1131

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To provide data on (a) the probability of detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large and consecutive cohort of serum samples referred for ANA testing and (b) the probability of detecting more specific antinuclear reactivities (anti-DNA and anti-extractable nuclear antigens (and-ENA)) in serum samples with a positive screening test (indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells). Methods-Serum samples from 10 550 consecutive patients sent to the laboratory for ANA detection were analysed. In ANA positive serum samples (23.5% of referred serum samples), ANA were identified by indirect immunofluorescence on Crithidia, by immunodiffusion, and by line immunoassay. Because anti-SSA antibodies were the most frequently identified ANA, sensitively detected by line immunoassay, additional immunoassays were developed to confirm the specificity of the line immunoassay result. Results-At least one fine reactivity could be identified in 21.1% of ANA positive serum samples: anti-dsDNA in 3.2%; anti-ENA (anti-SSA 10.5%, anti-SSB 6.7%, anti-RNP 2.7%, anti-Sm. 1.8%, anti-Scl70 1.2%, anti-Jo-1 0.2%) in 15.8%, rRNP and anti-Cenp-B in respectively 0.5% and 4.0%. Multiple reactivities were found in 7.9%. For anti-ENA antibodies, line immunoassay was more sensitive than immunodiffusion (15.4% v 7.7%; p <0.0001). The sensitive detection of anti-SSA antibodies by line immunoassay was confirmed by additional assays. Conclusions-The data from this analysis are useful in estimating the probabilities of detecting specific ANA. Line immunoassay was shown to be a sensitive test for the detection of anti-ENA antibodies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available