Homburger H A, Cahen Y D, Griffiths J, Jacob G L
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn 55905, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998 Nov;122(11):993-9.
To evaluate a commercial microtiter enzyme immunoassay for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by comparing the results of tests performed with this assay to an established indirect immunofluorescence method performed on human epitheliod cell substrate slides.
Both analytical methods were used to test for the presence and levels of ANA in stored sera from 313 patients previously shown to have detectable ANA and from 102 healthy control subjects. Follow-up tests for specific autoantibodies (anti-dsDNA antibodies and antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens [ENA]) were performed on all sera from patients. The medical histories of all patients were reviewed to determine the presence of systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs). Different cut-off levels of positivity were examined to determine the sensitivity and predictive values of positive results on the enzyme immunoassay for detecting patients with SRDs or sera with positive tests for specific autoantibodies.
Among patients with clinically diagnosed SRDs (n = 197), the enzyme immunoassay was positive for ANA (> or =1 U) in 100% and the indirect immunofluorescence method was positive (titer > or =40) in 95.4% of cases. Among ANA-positive patients with no SRDs (n = 116), testing by enzyme immunoassay and indirect immunofluorescence yielded positive results in 97.6% and 75.6% of cases, respectively. Among healthy control subjects, each of the two methods was positive in 15% of cases. As expected, most patients with SRDs had higher levels of ANA than did ANA-positive patients with other clinical diagnoses. A cut-off level of > or =3 U on the enzyme immunoassay correctly classified 77% of patients with a SRD as "positive" and 88% of patients with other clinical diagnoses as "negative." The probability of detecting a positive result for specific autoantibodies on second-order testing increased directly with the level of ANA. A cut-off level of > or =3 U had a sensitivity of 92% for identifying sera with positive specific autoantibodies, and results > or =3 U had a predictive value of 52% for a positive second-order test result.
Enzyme immunoassay is substantially equivalent to indirect immunofluorescence for detecting clinically important ANA. Cut-off levels for positive results on the enzyme immunoassay can be established that optimize the usefulness of this method in diagnostic algorithms for specific autoantibodies.
通过比较使用该检测方法得到的结果与在人上皮样细胞底物玻片上进行的既定间接免疫荧光法的结果,评估一种用于检测抗核抗体(ANA)的商用微量滴定酶免疫测定法。
两种分析方法均用于检测313例先前已显示可检测到ANA的患者以及102例健康对照者的储存血清中ANA的存在情况和水平。对所有患者血清进行特定自身抗体(抗双链DNA抗体和可提取核抗原[ENA]抗体)的随访检测。回顾所有患者的病史以确定是否存在系统性风湿性疾病(SRD)。检查不同的阳性临界值,以确定酶免疫测定法检测SRD患者或特定自身抗体检测呈阳性的血清的阳性结果的敏感性和预测值。
在临床诊断为SRD的患者(n = 197)中,酶免疫测定法检测ANA(≥1 U)的阳性率为100%,间接免疫荧光法的阳性率(滴度≥40)为95.4%。在无SRD的ANA阳性患者(n = 116)中,酶免疫测定法和间接免疫荧光法检测的阳性率分别为97.6%和75.6%。在健康对照者中,两种方法的阳性率均为15%。正如预期的那样,大多数SRD患者的ANA水平高于其他临床诊断的ANA阳性患者。酶免疫测定法≥3 U的临界值可将77%的SRD患者正确分类为“阳性”,将88%的其他临床诊断患者正确分类为“阴性”。二阶检测中检测到特定自身抗体阳性结果的概率直接随ANA水平升高而增加。≥3 U的临界值识别特定自身抗体阳性血清的敏感性为92%,≥3 U的结果对于二阶检测阳性结果的预测值为52%。
酶免疫测定法在检测临床上重要的ANA方面与间接免疫荧光法基本等效。可以确定酶免疫测定法的阳性结果临界值,以优化该方法在特定自身抗体诊断算法中的实用性。