International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies.

Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) are fundamental for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases, and have been determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) for decades. As the demand for ANA testing increased, alternative techniques were developed challenging the classic IIFA. These alternative platforms differ in their antigen profiles, sensitivity and specificity, raising uncertainties regarding standardisation and interpretation of incongruent results. Therefore, an international group of experts has created recommendations for ANA testing by different methods. Two groups of experts participated in this initiative. The European autoimmunity standardization initiative representing 15 European countries and the International Union of Immunologic Societies/World Health Organization/Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention autoantibody standardising committee. A three-step process followed by a Delphi exercise with closed voting was applied. Twenty-five recommendations for determining ANA (1-13), anti-double stranded DNA antibodies (14-18), specific antibodies (19-23) and validation of methods (24-25) were created. Significant differences between experts were observed regarding recommendations 24-25 (p<0.03). Here, we formulated recommendations for the assessment and interpretation of ANA and associated antibodies. Notably, the roles of IIFA as a reference method, and the importance of defining nuclear and cytoplasmic staining, were emphasised, while the need to incorporate alternative automated methods was acknowledged. Various approaches to overcome discrepancies between methods were suggested of which an improved bench-to-bedside communication is of the utmost importance. These recommendations are based on current knowledge and can enable harmonisation of local algorithms for testing and evaluation of ANA and related autoantibodies. Last but not least, new more appropriate terminologies have been suggested.

A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of antinuclear autoantibodies of defined specificities. III. Comparative performance characteristics of academic and manufacturers' laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of different commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kits for measuring antinuclear antibodies (ANA) specific for dsDNA, SSB/La, Sm, and Scl-70. METHODS: EIA kits for detection of ANA from 9 commercial manufacturers were evaluated. The manufacturers were advised that they would be sent coded sera containing mixtures of the Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control reference reagents, and that they were to use their own test kits to analyze the antibody specificities of these sera and to report the data, in optical density (OD) units or their equivalent. Independently, 12 investigators in academic institutions who have done research in this field agreed to participate in a parallel study. The concentration of the antibodies and the specificities were blinded to the analysts and the coefficients of variation (CV) were computed for each participant. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between laboratories in terms of CV for all 9 kits tested. With the exception of one kit, there were no significant CV differences between the various autoantibody kits provided by each manufacturer and, with the exception of kits from 2 manufacturers, there were no significant differences between the various antibody kits in terms of reproducibility (CV). From the point of view of interlaboratory variability, manufacturers could be separated into either a high or low performance group. CONCLUSION: We found a disconcertingly large range of performance characteristics in the various laboratories, which could be quite detrimental in routine utilization of EIA ANA kits. Clinicians should be aware of the performance issues raised in our study, and should know and be involved in how their service laboratory assesses its own performance and the performance of commercial testing systems utilized. Manufacturers and clinical laboratories need to exercise constant quality assurance and surveillance of kit performance in the hands of medical laboratory technologists involved in routine testing.

A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of antinuclear autoantibodies of defined specificities. II. Potential for quantitation of antibody content.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of different commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kits for measuring antibody levels of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) specific for double stranded (ds) DNA, SSB/La, Sm, and Scl-70. METHODS: Twenty companies that were known major purveyors of EIA kits for detection of ANA were approached to determine their interest and willingness to participate in this study. The manufacturers were advised that they would be sent coded sera containing mixtures of the Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control reference reagents, and that they were to use their own test kits to analyze the antibody specificities of these sera and to report the data, in optical density (OD) units, or their equivalent. The analysts were blinded to the concentration of the antibodies and the specificities. RESULTS: Initially, 11 manufacturers out of 20 agreed to participate, but 2 subsequently withdrew. The commercial EIA kits have the potential of being able to quantitate specific autoantibody content to ds-DNA, SSB/La, Sm, and Scl-70. However, certain deficiencies in these kits were also detected, the most obvious being lack of uniformly good performance, with kits of certain manufacturers showing exceptional accuracy in 3 out of 4 of their antibody-specific kits and poor accuracy for a 4th kit. CONCLUSION: It is important for clinicians to appreciate that there is marked inter-manufacturer variation in the performance of EIA kits used as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. Manufacturers need to exercise constant surveillance of kit performance and to provide assurance that such is being done. Improved EIA kits would lend themselves to reliable quantitation of antibody levels in human sera and help to determine whether serial measurement of antibody levels might be useful in monitoring disease activity.