Value of a commercial kit for detecting anti-C1q autoantibodies and correlation with immunological and clinical activity of lupus nephritis.

BACKGROUND: The association of anti-C1q antibodies (anti-C1q) with the renal activity of lupus nephritis (LN) and the methods for their determination is still a matter of debate. METHODS: In 116 serum samples of 66 patients with biopsy proven LN, we aimed: 1) to compare the results of the determination of anti-C1q obtained by a commercial kit with a clinically validated in-house ELISA; 2) to evaluate the correlation of anti-C1q with the most important immunological and clinical parameters employed in LN, i.e., antibodies to dsDNA (anti-dsDNA), C3 and C4 complement component, haemoglobin and haematuria. RESULTS: Good correlation and agreement between the two methods (r=0.81, p<0.0001; contingency coefficient=0.70, p<0.0001, respectively) were demonstrated. No differences were observed between the two assays by ROC curves comparison. Anti-C1q levels were significantly higher in patients with active LN [44 arbitrary units (AUs)] in comparison to those with inactive LN (23 AUs, p=0.047) and significantly correlated with anti-dsDNA (r=0.44, p<0.0001), complement fractions (C3: r=-0.33, p=0.001; C4: r=-0.29, p=0.003), haemoglobin levels (r=-0.34, p=0.0004) and the number of urinary red blood cells (r=0.26, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the validity of this commercial assay in detecting anti-C1q and confirm the association of anti-C1q with renal involvement of LN and the importance of introducing this parameter in the analytical panel for the evaluation of LN activity.

Urine sediment analysis: Analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX - a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX (77 Elektronika, Budapest, Hungary), a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser (which in some countries is also called Urised) in comparison with visual phase-contrast microscopy. METHODS: Precision, linearity, carry-over and method comparison were carried out according to well-established guidelines. The diagnostic performance with respect to visual phase-contrast microscopy was evaluated with results from two centres (n(1)=910, n(2)=1233). Uncentrifuged urine samples were used in visual microscopy in centre 1, while urine sediments were used in centre 2. RESULTS: Within-run precision for RBC was 17.8% and 6.7% at 18xE6 RBC/L and 447xE6 RBC/L respectively and for WBC it was 17% and 4.4% at 4xE6 WBC/L and 258xE6/L respectively. Between-run imprecision for RBC was 14.7% for 30xE6/L and 7.2% for 283xE6/L. For WBC it was 5.4% at 25xE6/L and 3% at 166xE6/L. In both studies areas under ROC curves (AUC) were 80-90% for RBC, WBC, squamous epithelial cells, yeast and calcium-oxalate crystals. For non-squamous epithelial cells and pathological and hyaline casts the AUC ranged 73-74%. There was no carry-over. CONCLUSIONS: The sediMAX is well able to count and identify RBC, WBC, squamous epithelial cells, yeast, bacteria and calcium-oxalate crystals. Recognition of pathological casts and non-squamous epithelial cells is adequate but needs to be improved.