Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Degree of Agreement between Phadia EliA ENA and Euroimmun line Immunoassay; Comparison of Two Methods to Evaluate the Ability to Detect ENA Antibodies

Article information

Kosin Med J. 2012;27(1):25-30
Publication date (electronic) : 2012 June 11
doi : https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2012.27.1.25
Hyun Yong Hwang
Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, Kosin University, Busan, Korea.
Corresponding Author: Hyun Yong Hwang, Department of laboratory medicine, College of Medicine, Kosin University, 34 Amnamdong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-702, Korea. TEL: 051) 990-6279, FAX: 051) 990-3010, terminom@hanmail.net
Received 2011 November 16; Revised 2011 December 08; Accepted 2011 December 26.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to compare newly developed assay for identification of ENA antibody, Phadia EliA ENA with Euroimmun line immunoassay by analyzing the degree of agreement and the individual antibodies between two methods.

Methods

A total of 82 patient samples were used. Indirect immunofluorescence assay using Hep-2 cell was performed to screen the antinuclear antibody (ANA). Euroimmun line immunoassay (LIA) and Phadia EliA ENA assay were tested to identify the antibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs). Kappa statistics was used to evaluate the degree of agreement.

Results

Mean age of patients was 41.0 (8-79), and the M:F ratio was 21:61. ANA was positive in 74 samples, and negative were 8 samples. Kappa analysis of the 82 tested samples showed a moderate strength of agreement (κ = 0.521, P = 0.000). There were differences in the order of identified individual antibodies between two methods (Ro > La = RNP > Centromere > Sm > Scl-70 in Phadia EliA ENA, Ro > RNP > Sm>La > Scl-70 > Centromere=Jo-1 in Euroimmun LIA). Ro antibody was most frequently identified in Phadia EliA ENA negative-Euroimmun LIA positive specimens (Ro > RNP = Jo-1 > La = Sm = Centromere > Scl-70).

Conclusions

A moderate strength of agreement was observed between the Phadia EliA ENA and the Euroimmun LIA. There seemed to be a significant difference in the ratio of individual antibodies, especially in the anti-Ro and Sm antibodies.

Keywords: Antinuclear antibody; Extractable nuclear antigen

References

1. Orton SM, Peace-Brewer A, Schmitz JL, Freeman K, Miller WC, Folds JD. Practical evaluation of methods for detection and specificity of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2004. 11297–301.
2. Tan EM. Antinuclear antibodies: diagnostic markers for autoimmune diseases and probes for cell biology. Adv Immunol 1989. 4493–151.
3. von Muhlen CA, Tan EM. Autoantibodies in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1995. 24323–358.
4. Kim Y, Park Y, Lee EY, Kim HS. Comparison of automated multiplexed bead-based ANA screening assay with ELISA for detecting five common anti-extractable nuclear antigens and anti-dsDNA in systemic rheumatic diseases. Clin Chim Acta 2012. 413308–311.
5. Lora PS, Laurino CC, Becker BS, Monticielo OA, Brenol JC, Xavier RM. Clinical diagnostic performance of different methods for the detection of antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens in connective tissue diseases: a cohort study. Clin Lab 2011. 57625–629.
6. Siracusano A, Agelli M, Ioppolo S, Quintieri F, Bombardieri S. Detection of anti-extractable nuclear antigens in connective tissue diseases: comparison between passive hemagglutination, counterimmunoelectrophoresis and double immunodiffusion. Ric Clin Lab 1985. 1533–38.
7. Fujimoto M, Shimozuma M, Yazawa N, Kubo M, Ihn H, Sato S, et al. Prevalence and clinical relevance of 52-kDa and 60-kDa Ro/SS-A autoantibodies in Japanese patients with systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1997. 56667–670.
8. Thomson KF, Murphy A, Goodfield MJ, Misbah SA. Is it useful to test for antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens in the presence of a negative antinuclear antibody on Hep-2 cells? J Clin Pathol 2001. 54413.
9. Manoussakis MN, Garalea KL, Tzioufas AG, Moutsopoulos HM. Testing for antibodies to ENA and to dsDNA is not indicated in FANA-negative sera. Clin Rheumatol 1988. 7465–469.
10. Malleson PN, Sailer M, Mackinnon MJ. Usefulness of antinuclear antibody testing to screen for rheumatic diseases. Arch Dis Child 1997. 77299–304.
11. Sinico RA, Bollini B, Sabadini E, Di Toma L, Radice A. The use of laboratory tests in diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Nephrol 2002. 15Suppl 6. S20–S27.
12. Fenger M, Wiik A, Hoier-Madsen M, Lykkegaard JJ, Rozenfeld T, Hansen MS, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by solid-phase immunoassays and immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chem 2004. 502141–2147.
13. Desplat-Jego S, Bardin N, Larida B, Sanmarco M. Evaluation of the BioPlex 2200 ANA screen for the detection of antinuclear antibodies and comparison with conventional methods. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007. 1109245–255.
14. Hwang HY, Kim JK. Is there no need to perform an additional ENA antibody test when the ANA screening test is negative? : Association analysis between the results of ANA screening test by IIFA and those of Ro60 and Ro52 autoantibody tests by LIA. Kosin Med J 2007. 22120–125.
15. Van Venrooij WJ, Sillekens PT. Small nuclear RNA associated proteins: autoantigens in connective tissue diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1989. 7635–645.
16. Sharp GC, Irvin WS, Tan EM, Gould RG, Holman HR. Mixed connective tissue disease-an apparently distinct rheumatic disease syndrome associated with a specific antibody to an extractable nuclear antigen (ENA). Am J Med 1972. 52148–159.
17. Sharp GC, Irvin WS, May CM, Holman HR, McDuffie FC, Hess EV, et al. Association of antibodies to ribonucleoprotein and Sm antigens with mixed connective-tissue disease, systematic lupus erythematosus and other rheumatic diseases. N Engl J Med 1976. 2951149–1154.
18. Fritzler MJ, Elkon KB. In : Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH, eds. Autoantibodies in SLE. Rheumatology 2003. 3rd edth ed. NY: Mosby; 1340–1341.
19. Francoeur AM. Anti-SM and anti-U1-RNP lupus antibody fine specificities. J Clin Immunol 1989. 9256–263.
20. Habets WJ, Sillekens PT, Hoet MH, McAllister G, Lerner MR, van Venrooij WJ. Small nuclear RNA-associated proteins are immunologically related as revealed by mapping of autoimmune reactive B-cell epitopes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989. 864674–4678.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2012 Kosin University College of Medicine

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Individual antibodies in Phadia EliA negative- Euroimmun LIA positive or trace

Table 1

Concordance between Phadia EliA ENA and Euroimmun LIA

Table 1

Table 2

Indivisual antibodies in Phadia EliA ENA

Table 2

Table 3

Indivisual antibodies in Euroimmun LIA

Table 3