Practical Evaluation of Methods for Detection and Specificity of Autoantibodies to Extractable Nuclear Antigens

Detection and specificity of autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a critical role in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune disease. Historically, the detection of these antibodies has employed double immunodiffusion (DID). Autoantibody specificity was correlated with diagnoses by this technique. Enzyme immunoassays have been developed by multiple manufacturers to detect and identify the specificity ENA autoantibodies. To address the relationship of ENA detection by DID and enzyme immunoassay, the performances of five immunoassays were compared. These included two DID and three enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISA) (both screening and individual antigen profile kits). The sample set included 83 ENA-positive, antinuclear-antibody (ANA)-positive specimens, 77 ENA-negative, ANA-positive specimens, and 20 ENA- and ANA-negative specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by two methods: first, by using the in-house DID result as the reference standard, and second, by using latent class analysis, which evaluates each kit result independently. Overall, the results showed that the ELISA methods were more sensitive for detection of ENA autoantibodies than DID techniques, but presence and/or specific type of ENA autoantibody did not always correlate with the patient''s clinical presentation. Regardless of the testing strategy an individual laboratory uses, clear communication with the clinical staff regarding the significance of a positive result is imperative. The laboratory and the clinician must both be aware of the sensitivity and specificity of each testing method in use in the clinical laboratory.A diagnosis of autoimmune disease in patients is based upon clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). A particular class of ANAs specific for extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) was initially described in 1959 (3). Since that time, many different anti-ENA antibodies have been described. The detection of these autoantibodies and identification of their specificity have become well-established tools for the laboratory diagnosis of several autoimmune diseases. Studies of patients with ENA antibodies have shown that detection of these autoantibodies may have both diagnostic and prognostic significance, and the detection of anti-ENA antibodies has assumed an important role in the management of these patients (5, 16, 22). In most cases, ENA testing is ordered after an initial ANA screen. The indications for use are to establish a diagnosis in patients with suggestive clinical symptoms, to exclude a diagnosis of autoimmune disease in patients with few or uncertain clinical signs, to subclassify patients with a known diagnosis, and to monitor disease activity.Testing for anti-ENA antibodies has historically relied on gel-based immunoprecipitation techniques such as double immunodiffusion (DID) and counterimmunoelectrophoresis (2, 14). The associations of specific types of ENA autoantibodies with rheumatological diseases were established by using these gel-based immunoassay techniques (15). In the last decade, enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) systems have been developed to detect and determine the specificity of anti-ENA antibodies. ELISA systems permit more rapid processing of more specimens with a faster turnaround time than gel-based assays. ELISA-based methods may also have increased sensitivity for detection of ENA antibodies. However, the increased sensitivity of these ELISAs may influence the clinical relevance of their detection because diagnostic specificity may be reduced (10, 12, 17, 24). As yet, a set of reference standards with known antibody specificities against defined antigen preparations is not available for evaluation of various methods or kits. Serum reference panels are available from the Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (4), but the specificities of these sera were determined by consensus results from multiple laboratories. The purpose of this study was to address the relationship between DID and ELISA methods for the detection and identification of anti-ENA antibodies by evaluating and comparing two DID kits and three ELISA kits. We evaluated both screening ELISAs and monospecific antigen ELISAs to determine anti-ENA specificity.