High-Quality, Cost-Effective Strategy for Detection of Autoantibodies to Extractable Nuclear Antigens
| Autor: | Kerri Gallagher, Stephen Adelstein, Andrew Williams, Watson W. S. Ng, Dana Bird, Vicky Wong, Kara Smithers, Tri Giang Phan |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2001 |
| Předmět: |
Microbiology (medical)
Repeat testing Extractable nuclear antigens Cost-Benefit Analysis Clinical Biochemistry Immunology Autoimmunity Antibodies and Mediators of Immunity Decreased requirement mental disorders Humans Immunology and Allergy Medicine Prospective Studies Line immunoassay Autoantibodies Immunoassay Alternative methods business.industry Autoantibody Nuclear Proteins Antigens Nuclear Serum samples business Counterimmunoelectrophoresis |
| Zdroj: | Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. 8:471-474 |
| ISSN: | 1098-6588 1071-412X |
| DOI: | 10.1128/cdli.8.3.471-474.2001 |
| Popis: | We evaluated methods for the detection of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs) to determine the strategy that yielded the most cost effective and clinically meaningful result. We prospectively compared counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIEP) with and without serum prediffusion (SPD) and found that SPD significantly improved the quality of precipitation lines. This resulted in a decreased requirement for repeat testing and, consequently, was associated with a significant decrease in reagent costs and specimen turnaround time. We also retrospectively compared reactivity by CIEP, CIEP plus SPD, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and line immunoassay (LIA) of 52 serum samples that were previously determined to be positive for ENAs, and we correlated the results with clinical diagnoses. There was significant agreement among CIEP, CIEP plus SPD, ELISA, and LIA for the detection of anti-SS-A, anti-SS-B and anti-RNP. In general, CIEP, CIEP plus SPD, and LIA correlated better with the clinical diagnoses than ELISA, even though ELISA detected anti-ENAs more often than the other methods. CIEP plus SPD is therefore the most cost effective method for the identification of clinically meaningful ENAs. Based on our experience, we now screen for ENAs by CIEP, and positive samples are then typed by CIEP plus SPD. Samples that are difficult to interpret are then further assessed by an alternative method. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|