Van Campenhout C M, Van Cotthem K A, Stevens W J, De Clerck L S
Department of Immunology and Protein Chemistry, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2007;67(8):859-67. doi: 10.1080/00365510701408582.
To evaluate the performing technical and clinical characteristics of an automated system for routine measurement of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (aCCP), a new marker for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Reproducibility, repeatability and linearity of aCCP, as measured by an automated fluorescent enzyme immunoassay (FEIA/Phadia), were evaluated and compared with the performance of a manual ELISA technique (Axis Shield Diagnostics). Clinical verification of both methods included estimation of sensitivity in RA patients (n = 42) and specificity in well-characterized non-RA autoimmune disease controls (n = 49) and healthy subjects (n = 39).
Precision studies showed a coefficient of variation between 4.9 % and 10 % for the FEIA technique and between 6.35% and 19% for the ELISA technique. Both systems showed good linear response. Sensitivity of aCCP for RA was 74% for FEIA and 79% for ELISA. Specificity was 100% for both methods, as calculated for healthy subjects. For non-RA-diseased controls, specificities of 98% and 94% were obtained for FEIA and ELISA, respectively. Both methods were concordant in 97% of cases. Increasing the cut-off for the ELISA system from >5 U/mL to >11 U/mL resulted in lower sensitivity (71.4%) but higher specificity (98.0%), i.e. improved discriminating power between RA and non-RA and 100% agreement between both methods.
Automated FEIA measurement of aCCP in the routine clinical laboratory improves imprecision compared to the manual ELISA. Our preliminary results suggest that an increase in cut-off for the ELISA can improve specificity to RA from 94% to 98 %.
评估用于类风湿关节炎(RA)新标志物抗环瓜氨酸肽抗体(aCCP)常规检测的自动化系统的技术性能和临床特征。
通过自动化荧光酶免疫测定法(FEIA/Phadia)检测aCCP的重复性、再现性和线性,并与手动ELISA技术(Axis Shield Diagnostics)的性能进行比较。两种方法的临床验证包括评估RA患者(n = 42)的敏感性、明确诊断的非RA自身免疫性疾病对照者(n = 49)和健康受试者(n = 39)的特异性。
精密度研究显示,FEIA技术的变异系数在4.9%至10%之间,ELISA技术的变异系数在6.35%至19%之间。两种系统均显示出良好的线性响应。FEIA检测aCCP对RA的敏感性为74%,ELISA为79%。对于健康受试者,两种方法的特异性均为100%。对于非RA疾病对照者,FEIA和ELISA的特异性分别为98%和94%。两种方法在97%的病例中结果一致。将ELISA系统的临界值从>5 U/mL提高到>11 U/mL,敏感性降低(71.4%)但特异性提高(98.0%),即改善了RA与非RA之间的鉴别能力,且两种方法的一致性为100%。
与手动ELISA相比,常规临床实验室中自动化FEIA检测aCCP可提高检测的精密度。我们的初步结果表明,提高ELISA的临界值可将对RA的特异性从94%提高到98%。