Analytical performance and user-friendliness of four commercially available point-of-care devices for C-reactive protein.

INTRODUCTION: Proper implementation of Point-of-Care testing (POCT) for C-reactive protein (CRP) in primary care can decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics, thereby tackling the problem of growing antimicrobial resistance. OBJECTIVE: The analytical performance and user-friendliness of four POCT-CRP assays were evaluated: QuikRead go easy, LumiraDx, cobas b 101 and Afinion 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imprecision was evaluated using plasma pools in addition to manufacturer-specific control material. Trueness was assessed by verification of traceability to ERM-DA474/IFCC in parallel to method comparison towards the central laboratory CRP method (cobas c 503) using i) retrospectively selected plasma samples (n = 100) and ii) prospectively collected capillary whole blood samples (n = 50). User-friendliness was examined using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Between-day imprecision on plasma pools varied from 4.5 % (LumiraDx) to 11.5 % (QuikRead). Traceability verification revealed no significant difference between cobas c 503 CRP results and the ERM-DA474/IFCC certified value. cobas b 101 and Afinion achieved the best agreement with the central laboratory method. LumiraDx and QuikRead revealed a negative mean difference, with LumiraDx violating the criterion of > 95 % of POCT-CRP-results within ± 20 % of the comparison method. Regarding user-friendliness, Afinion obtained the highest Likert-scores. CONCLUSION: The analytical performance and user-friendliness of POCT-CRP devices varies among manufacturers, emphasizing the need for quality assurance supervised by a central laboratory.

Classification of rheumatoid arthritis: is it time to revise the criteria?

Classification criteria have been developed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic diseases in order to gather a homogeneous patient population for clinical studies and facilitate the timely implementation of therapeutic measures. Although classification criteria are not intended to be used for diagnosis, they are frequently used to support the diagnostic process in clinical practice, including clinical decision-making. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) classification criteria for RA are capable of identifying the majority of symptomatic patients with RA already in the earliest stages of the disease who are not yet showing radiographic changes. These patients will also profit from the early implementation of therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, the risk of misclassification is higher as compared with the former 1987 ACR criteria, which were considerably less sensitive to the recognition of patients with early RA. Of note, the presence of rheumatoid factors (RFs) and anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) has been attributed equal weight in the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and may contribute up to 50% of the score needed for being classified as RA. However, while ACPAs have been proven to be the most specific serological markers of RA, the specificity of RF is moderate, especially at lower titres. This may lead to the misclassification of RF-positive patients and, consequently, the unjustified implementation of DMARD therapy. Therefore, issues arise on how comprehensive the criteria should be and whether they should be updated and adapted to findings from the past two decades that might increase both their specificity and sensitivity.

From autoantibody test results to decision making: Incorporating likelihood ratios within medical practice.

Autoantibodies are important laboratory markers to support diagnosis of autoimmune diseases. Interpretation of autoantibodies is classically done in a dichotomous way (positive versus negative). Yet, interpretation of autoantibody test results can be improved by reporting likelihood ratios. Likelihood ratios convey information on how much more/less likely a test result is in individuals with the disease compared to individuals without the disease. It incorporates information on the antibody level (the higher the antibody level, the higher the association with the disease), which is helpful for (differential) diagnosis. Likelihood ratios are unit-independent and allow users to harmonize test result interpretation. When the likelihood ratio is combined with information on the pre-test probability, post-test probability can be appraised. In this review, the applicability of likelihood ratio in autoimmune diagnostics will be reviewed from the perspective of the clinician, the laboratory professional and the in vitro diagnostic industry.

Should ACR/EULAR criteria be revised changing the RF and ACPA scores?

Current classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) encompass clinical and immunological items and are capable of correctly identifying the majority of symptomatic RA patients. The presence of positive rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) gaining increasing importance according to their serological titer eases the recognition of RA, yet the debate is open on whether this scoring system ought to be optimized by hierarchizing ACPA or the combination of ACPA and RF over single positivity, prioritizing specificity over sensitivity. The risk of misdiagnosis and misclassification are often entangled, yet they are not the same. In fact, while ideal diagnosis requires 100% sensitivity and specificity, classification criteria are conceived to gather a homogeneous patient population, favoring specificity over sensitivity. Nevertheless, as they are frequently summoned to support the diagnostic process in clinical practice, issues arise on how comprehensive those should be and on how frequently they should be updated in light of novel acquisitions regarding measurable RA-related abnormalities. In this viewpoint two different views on the topic are confronted, discussing the performance of available criteria and the potentiality and pitfalls of their refinement according to novel data on ACPA and RF contribution and emergence of newly discovered specificities.

Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) in Autoimmune Rheumatic and Non Rheumatic Diseases.

The soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is the bioactive form of uPAR, a membrane-bound glycoprotein, and it is primarily expressed on the surface of immunologically active cells. Mirroring local inflammation and immune activation, suPAR has gained interest as a potential prognostic biomarker in several inflammatory diseases. Indeed, in many diseases, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, kidney diseases, and inflammatory disorders, higher suPAR concentrations have been associated with disease severity, disease relapse, and mortality. Our review describes and discusses the supporting literature concerning the promising role of suPAR as a biomarker in different autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases.

Detection of antinuclear antibodies: recommendations from EFLM, EASI and ICAP.

OBJECTIVES: Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are important for the diagnosis of various autoimmune diseases. ANA are usually detected by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA). There are many variables influencing HEp-2 IFA results, such as subjective visual reading, serum screening dilution, substrate manufacturing, microscope components and conjugate. Newer developments on ANA testing that offer novel features adopted by some clinical laboratories include automated computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems and solid phase assays (SPA). METHODS: A group of experts reviewed current literature and established recommendations on methodological aspects of ANA testing. This process was supported by a two round Delphi exercise. International expert groups that participated in this initiative included (i) the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "Autoimmunity Testing"; (ii) the European Autoimmune Standardization Initiative (EASI); and (iii) the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP). RESULTS: In total, 35 recommendations/statements related to (i) ANA testing and reporting by HEp-2 IFA; (ii) HEp-2 IFA methodological aspects including substrate/conjugate selection and the application of CAD systems; (iii) quality assurance; (iv) HEp-2 IFA validation/verification approaches and (v) SPA were formulated. Globally, 95% of all submitted scores in the final Delphi round were above 6 (moderately agree, agree or strongly agree) and 85% above 7 (agree and strongly agree), indicating strong international support for the proposed recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are an important step to achieve high quality ANA testing.

Analytical aspects of the antinuclear antibody test by HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence: EFLM report on an international survey.

OBJECTIVES: Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence assay using HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA) is used to screen for various autoimmune diseases. HEp-2 IFA suffers from variability, which hampers harmonization. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to collect information on HEp-2 IFA methodology, computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems, training, inter-observer variability, quality assessment, reagent lot change control, and method verification. The questionnaire was distributed to laboratories by Sciensano (Belgium), national EASI groups (Italy, Croatia, Portugal, Estonia, Greece) and ICAP (worldwide). Answers were obtained by 414 laboratories. The results were analysed in the framework of the recent EFLM/EASI/ICAP ANA recommendations (companion paper). RESULTS: Laboratories used either HEp-2, HEp-2000, or HEp-20-10 cells and most laboratories (80%) applied the same screening dilution for children and adults. The conjugate used varied between laboratories [IgG-specific (in 57% of laboratories) vs. polyvalent]. Sixty-nine percent of CAD users reviewed the automatic nuclear pattern and 53% of CAD users did not fully exploit the fluorescence intensity for quality assurance. Internal quality control was performed by 96% of the laboratories, in 52% of the laboratories only with strongly positive samples. Interobserver variation was controlled by 79% of the laboratories. Limited lot-to-lot evaluation was performed by 68% of the laboratories. Method verification was done by 80% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Even though many laboratories embrace high-quality HEp-2 IFA, substantial differences in how HEp-2 IFA is performed and controlled remain. Acting according to the EFLM/EASI/ICAP ANA recommendations can improve the global performance and quality of HEp-2 IFA and nurture harmonization.

Circulating Calprotectin (cCLP) in autoimmune diseases.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Calprotectin (CLP) is a heterodimeric complex formed by two S100 proteins (S100A8/A9), which plays a pivotal role in innate immunity. Due to its intrinsic cytotoxic and proinflammatory properties, CLP controls cell differentiation, proliferation and NETosis and has been associated with a wide range of rheumatic diseases. Our review summarizes the widespread interest in circulating CLP (cCLP) as a biomarker of neutrophil-related inflammation, in autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) and non-ARD. METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed and EMBASE databases searching for circulating calprotectin and synonyms S100A8/A9, myeloid-related protein 8/14 (MRP8/MRP14), calgranulin A/B and L1 protein in addition to specific ARDs and autoimmune non-rheumatic diseases. We selected only English-language articles and excluded abstracts without the main text. RESULTS: High cCLP serum levels are associated with worse structural outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis and to a lesser extent, in spondyloarthritis. In addition, cCLP can predict disease relapse in some autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies-associated vasculitis (AAV) and some severe manifestations of connective tissue diseases, such as glomerulonephritis in SLE, AAV, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, adult-onset Still's disease and lung fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. Therefore, cCLP levels enable the identification of patients who need an accurate and tight follow-up. The clinical usefulness of cCLP as an inflammatory marker has been suggested for inflammatory/autoimmune non-rheumatic diseases, and especially for the monitoring of the inflammatory bowel diseases patients. Currently, there are only a few studies that evaluated the cCLP efficacy as a clinical biomarker in inflammatory/autoimmune non-rheumatic diseases with controversial results. Future studies are warranted to better clarify the role of cCLP in relation to the disease severity in myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, Graves' orbitopathy, autoimmune bullous diseases and uveitis. CONCLUSION: Our literature review supports a relevant role of cCLP as potential prognostic biomarker mirroring local or systemic inflammation, especially in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Serial measurement of circulating calprotectin as a prognostic biomarker in COVID-19 patients in intensive care setting.

OBJECTIVES: Circulating calprotectin (cCLP) has been shown to be a promising prognostic marker for COVID-19 severity. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of serial measurements of cCLP in COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: From November 2020 to May 2021, patients with COVID-19, admitted at the ICU of the OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium, were prospectively included. For sixty-six (66) patients, blood samples were collected at admission and subsequently every 48 h during ICU stay. On every sample (total n=301), a cCLP (EliA™ Calprotectin 2, Phadia 200, Thermo Fisher Scientific; serum/plasma protocol (for Research Use Only, -RUO-) and C-reactive protein (CRP; cobas c501/c503, Roche Diagnostics) analysis were performed. Linear mixed models were used to associate biomarkers levels with mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, length of stay at ICU (LOS-ICU) and medication use (antibiotics, corticosteroids, antiviral and immune suppressant/modulatory drugs). RESULTS: Longitudinally higher levels of all biomarkers were associated with LOS-ICU and with the need for mechanical ventilation. Medication use and LOS-ICU were not associated with variations in cCLP and CRP levels. cCLP levels increased significantly during ICU hospitalization in the deceased group (n=21/66) but decreased in the non-deceased group (n=45/66). In contrast, CRP levels decreased non-significantly in both patient groups, although significantly longitudinally higher CRP levels were obtained in the deceased subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Serial measurements of cCLP provides prognostic information which can be useful to guide clinical management of COVID-19 patients in ICU setting.

Arterial to end-tidal CO2 gradients during isocapnic hyperventilation.

Isocapnic hyperventilation (ICHV) is occasionally used to maintain the end-expired CO2 partial pressure (PETCO2) when the inspired CO2 (PICO2) rises. Whether maintaining PETCO2 with ICHV during an increase of the PICO2 also maintains arterial PCO2 (PaCO2) remains poorly documented. 12 ASA PS I-II subjects undergoing a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) (n = 11) or cystectomy (n = 1) under general endotracheal anesthesia with sevoflurane in O2/air (40% inspired O2) were enrolled. PICO2 was sequentially increased from 0 to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2% by adding CO2 to the inspiratory limb of the circle system, while increasing ventilation to a target PETCO2 of 4.7-4.9% by adjusting respiratory rate during controlled mechanical ventilation. Pa-ETCO2 gradients were determined after a 15 min equilibration period at each PICO2 level and compared using ANOVA. Mean (standard deviation) age, height, and weight were 66 (6) years, 171 (6) cm, and 75 (8) kg, respectively. Capnograms were normal and hemodynamic parameters remained stable. PETCO2 could be maintained within 4.7-4.9% in all subjects at all times except in 1 subject with 1.5% PICO2 and 5 subjects with 2.0% PICO2; data from the one subject in whom both 1.5 and 2.0% PICO2 resulted in PETCO2 > 5.1% were excluded from analysis. Pa-ETCO2 gradients did not change when PICO2 increased. The effect of a modest rise of PICO2 up to 1.5% on PETCO2 during RARP can be readily overcome by increasing ventilation without altering the Pa-ETCO2 gradients. At higher PICO2, airway pressures may become a limiting factor, which requires further study.

Serum free light chain analysis: persisting limitations with new kids on the block.

OBJECTIVES: Serum free light chain (sFLC) measurements have inherent analytical limitations impacting sFLC clinical interpretation. We evaluated analytical and diagnostic performance of three polyclonal sFLC assays on four analytical platforms. METHODS: sFLC concentration was measured using Diazyme FLC assays (Diazyme) on cobas c501/c503 analyzer (Roche); Freelite assays (The Binding Site) on Optilite analyzer (The Binding Site) and cobas c501 analyzer and Sebia FLC ELISA assays (Sebia) on AP22 ELITE analyzer (DAS). Imprecision, linearity, method comparison vs. Freelite/Optilite, antigen excess detection and reference value verification were assessed. Diagnostic performance was compared on 120 serum samples and on follow-up samples of five patients with κ and λ monoclonal gammopathy. RESULTS: Method comparison showed excellent correlation with Freelite/Optilite method for all assays. A large proportional negative bias was shown for both Sebia κ and λ ELISA and a significant positive proportional bias for λ in the low (<10 mg/L) Freelite/cobas c501 method. Clinically relevant underestimation of κ sFLC levels due to antigen excess was shown for 7% of each Diazyme/cobas application and for 11 and 32.1% of λ sFLC assay of respectively Diazyme/cobas and Sebia/AP22. sFLC reference values revealed application specific. Cohen's κ values were (very) good for κ sFLC but only moderate to good for λ sFLC. In 4/10 follow-up patients, significant differences in clinical interpretation between sFLC assays were noticed. CONCLUSIONS: Important analytical limitations remain for all sFLC applications. Differences in reference values and diagnostic performance hamper interchangeability of sFLC assays. Assay specific sFLC decision guidelines are warranted.

IgA rheumatoid factor in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid factor (RF) is a well-established marker for the diagnosis and classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Most studies evaluated IgM RF or isotype-nonspecific total RF assays. We evaluated the added value of IgA RF in this context. METHODS: An international sample cohort consisting of samples from 398 RA patients and 1073 controls was tested for IgA RF with 3 commercial assays. For all RA patients and 100 controls essential clinical and serological data for ACR/EULAR classification were available. RESULTS: The sensitivity of IgA RF for diagnosing RA was lower than the sensitivity of IgM RF. Differences in numerical values between IgA RF assays were observed. With all assays, the highest IgA RF values were found in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. Double positivity for IgM RF and IgA RF had a higher specificity for RA than either IgM RF or IgA RF. The sensitivity of double positivity was lower than the sensitivity of either IgA RF or IgM RF. Single positivity for IgA RF was at least as prevalent in controls than in RA patients. Adding IgA RF to IgM RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) did not affect RA classification. However, combined positivity for IgA RF, IgM RF and IgG ACPA had a higher specificity and lower sensitivity for RA classification than positivity for either of the antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: IgA RF showed a lower sensitivity than IgM RF. Combining IgA RF with IgM RF and ACPA did not improve sensitivity of RA classification. Combined positivity (IgA-RF/IgM-RF/ACPA) increased specificity.

Standardisation of ACPA tests: evaluation of a new candidate reference preparation.

INTRODUCTION: Commercial assays measuring antibodies to citrullinated protein/peptide (ACPA) show poor quantitative agreement. The diagnostic industry has never adopted the International Union of Immunological Societies-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (IUIS-CDC) ACPA reference standard. Recently, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) prepared a new candidate ACPA standard (18/204). We evaluated both reference materials using different commercially available ACPA assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an international study in which the NIBSC candidate ACPA standard and the IUIS-CDC ACPA reference material were analysed together with 398 diagnostic samples from individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and in 1073 individuals who did not have RA using nine commercial ACPA assays. RESULTS: For both reference materials and samples from individuals with RA and individuals who did not have RA, there were large differences in quantitative ACPA results between assays. For most assays, values for the IUIS-CDC standard were lower than values for NIBSC 18/204 and the IUIS-CDC/NIBSC ratio was comparable for several, but not all assays. When NIBSC 18/204 was used as a calibrator, an improvement in alignment of ACPA results across several of the evaluated assays was obtained. Moreover, NIBSC 18/204 could align clinical interpretation for some but not all assays. CONCLUSION: Adoption of an international standard for ACPA determination is highly desirable. The candidate NIBSC 18/204 standard improved the standardisation and alignment of most ACPA assays and might therefore be recommended to be used as reference in commercial assays.

Multicentre study to improve clinical interpretation of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies test results.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are important biomarkers for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is poor harmonisation of RF and ACPA assays. The aim of this study was to refine RF and ACPA interpretation across commercial assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six total RF isotype-non-specific assays, 3 RF IgM isotype-specific assays and 9 ACPA immunoglobulin G assays of 13 different companies were evaluated using 398 diagnostic samples from patients with RA and 1073 disease controls. RESULTS: Using cut-offs proposed by the manufacturer, there was a large variability in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity between assays. Thresholds of antibody levels were determined based on predefined specificities and used to define test result intervals. Test result interval-specific likelihood ratios (LRs) were concordant across the different RF and ACPA assays. For all assays, the LR for RA increased with increasing antibody level. Higher LRs were found for ACPA than for RF. ACPA levels associated with LRs >80 were found in a substantial fraction (>22%) of patients with RA. CONCLUSION: Defining thresholds for antibody levels and assigning test result interval-specific LRs allows alignment of clinical interpretation for all RF and ACPA assays.

Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies.

Antibodies to dsDNA are an important laboratory parameter for diagnosis, monitoring and classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In clinical laboratories, several techniques are used to detect and quantify anti-dsDNA antibodies. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages regarding sensitivity, specificity, avidity and assay procedure. Assays differ with respect to the antigen source (native versus synthetic versus molecular biological) used and the way the antigen is presented (e.g. in solution, covalently linked to a solid phase,…). Consequently, correlation between assays can be poor and standardization of anti-dsDNA antibody tests is challenging. We here provide an overview of the currently available anti-dsDNA tests frequently used in clinical laboratories [Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT), Enzyme linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA), fluoroenzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminisence immunoassay (CIA), multiplexed bead-based assays and Farr-RIA] and their performance characteristics. From this literature study, we concluded that performance characteristics differ between assays. Often, a combination of techniques is necessary for the best result interpretation.

Impact of autoimmune serology test results on RA classification and diagnosis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common systemic autoimmune disease and also the most severe arthritic disorder. The measurement of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) in serum supports the diagnosis of RA, which gained increasing significance over the last 65 years. However, a high variability between RF and ACPA methods has been described, impacting the diagnostic performance of the current ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria. The great number of commercially available assays, often lacking traceability to an international standard, is a major factor attributing to this in-between assay variability. The adoption of an international standard for ACPA, as is since long available for rheumatoid factor, is therefore highly desirable. Further harmonization in clinical interpretation of RF/ACPA assays could be obtained by harmonization of the cut-offs, for both the low and high antibody levels, based on predefined specificity in disease controls. Reporting test result specific likelihood ratios (LR) adds value in the interpretation of autoantibody tests. However, a good understanding of the control population used to define antibody test result interval-associated LRs is crucial in defining the diagnostic performance characteristics of antibody serology. Finally, specificity in RA classification can be improved by refining serological weight scoring taking into account the nature of the antibody, the antibody level and double RF + ACPA positivity.

Organisation and quality monitoring for point-of-care testing (POCT) in Belgium: proposal for an expansion of the legal framework for POCT into primary health care.

BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards decentralisation of laboratory tests by means of Point-of-Care testing (POCT). Within hospitals, Belgian law requires a POCT policy, coordinated by the clinical laboratory. There is however no legal framework for POCT performed outside the hospital: no reimbursement, no compulsory quality monitoring and no limits nor control on the prices charged to the patient. Uncontrolled use of POCT can have negative consequences for individual and public health. PROPOSAL: We propose that POCT outside hospitals would only be reimbursed for tests carried out within a legal framework, requiring evidence-based testing and collaboration with a clinical laboratory, because clinical laboratories have procedures for test validation and quality monitoring, are equipped for electronic data transfer, are familiar with logistical processes, can provide support when technical issues arise and can organise and certify training. Under these conditions the government investment will be offset by health benefits, e.g. fall in antibiotic consumption with POCT for CRP in primary care, quick response to SARS-CoV2-positive cases in COVID-19 triage centres. PRIORITIES: 1° extension of the Belgian decree on certification of clinical laboratories to decentralised tests in primary care; 2° introduction of a separate reimbursement category for POCT; 3° introduction of reimbursement for a limited number of specified POCT; 4° setup of a Multidisciplinary POCT Advisory Council, the purpose of which is to draw up a model for reimbursement of POCT, to select tests eligible for reimbursement and to make proposals to the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (RIZIV/INAMI).