Standardisation of ACPA tests: evaluation of a new candidate reference preparation.

INTRODUCTION: Commercial assays measuring antibodies to citrullinated protein/peptide (ACPA) show poor quantitative agreement. The diagnostic industry has never adopted the International Union of Immunological Societies-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (IUIS-CDC) ACPA reference standard. Recently, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) prepared a new candidate ACPA standard (18/204). We evaluated both reference materials using different commercially available ACPA assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an international study in which the NIBSC candidate ACPA standard and the IUIS-CDC ACPA reference material were analysed together with 398 diagnostic samples from individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and in 1073 individuals who did not have RA using nine commercial ACPA assays. RESULTS: For both reference materials and samples from individuals with RA and individuals who did not have RA, there were large differences in quantitative ACPA results between assays. For most assays, values for the IUIS-CDC standard were lower than values for NIBSC 18/204 and the IUIS-CDC/NIBSC ratio was comparable for several, but not all assays. When NIBSC 18/204 was used as a calibrator, an improvement in alignment of ACPA results across several of the evaluated assays was obtained. Moreover, NIBSC 18/204 could align clinical interpretation for some but not all assays. CONCLUSION: Adoption of an international standard for ACPA determination is highly desirable. The candidate NIBSC 18/204 standard improved the standardisation and alignment of most ACPA assays and might therefore be recommended to be used as reference in commercial assays.

IgA rheumatoid factor in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid factor (RF) is a well-established marker for the diagnosis and classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Most studies evaluated IgM RF or isotype-nonspecific total RF assays. We evaluated the added value of IgA RF in this context. METHODS: An international sample cohort consisting of samples from 398 RA patients and 1073 controls was tested for IgA RF with 3 commercial assays. For all RA patients and 100 controls essential clinical and serological data for ACR/EULAR classification were available. RESULTS: The sensitivity of IgA RF for diagnosing RA was lower than the sensitivity of IgM RF. Differences in numerical values between IgA RF assays were observed. With all assays, the highest IgA RF values were found in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. Double positivity for IgM RF and IgA RF had a higher specificity for RA than either IgM RF or IgA RF. The sensitivity of double positivity was lower than the sensitivity of either IgA RF or IgM RF. Single positivity for IgA RF was at least as prevalent in controls than in RA patients. Adding IgA RF to IgM RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) did not affect RA classification. However, combined positivity for IgA RF, IgM RF and IgG ACPA had a higher specificity and lower sensitivity for RA classification than positivity for either of the antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: IgA RF showed a lower sensitivity than IgM RF. Combining IgA RF with IgM RF and ACPA did not improve sensitivity of RA classification. Combined positivity (IgA-RF/IgM-RF/ACPA) increased specificity.

Multicentre study to improve clinical interpretation of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies test results.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are important biomarkers for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is poor harmonisation of RF and ACPA assays. The aim of this study was to refine RF and ACPA interpretation across commercial assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six total RF isotype-non-specific assays, 3 RF IgM isotype-specific assays and 9 ACPA immunoglobulin G assays of 13 different companies were evaluated using 398 diagnostic samples from patients with RA and 1073 disease controls. RESULTS: Using cut-offs proposed by the manufacturer, there was a large variability in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity between assays. Thresholds of antibody levels were determined based on predefined specificities and used to define test result intervals. Test result interval-specific likelihood ratios (LRs) were concordant across the different RF and ACPA assays. For all assays, the LR for RA increased with increasing antibody level. Higher LRs were found for ACPA than for RF. ACPA levels associated with LRs >80 were found in a substantial fraction (>22%) of patients with RA. CONCLUSION: Defining thresholds for antibody levels and assigning test result interval-specific LRs allows alignment of clinical interpretation for all RF and ACPA assays.

Performance Evaluation of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody and IgG Antibody Test.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the performance of 2 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is evaluated. METHODS: The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) and IgG (COV2G) antibody tests were evaluated on a Siemens Atellica IM1300 analyzer. Imprecision was assessed with the CLSI EP15 protocol using positive controls. Ninety control group specimens were analyzed for specificity, and 175 specimens from 58 patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were measured for the sensitivity and kinetics of the antibody response. RESULTS: Within-run and total imprecision were acceptable for both assays. Both tests showed a specificity of 100%. Sensitivity earlier in the disease state was greater for the COV2T assay than for the COV2G assay, but sensitivity >14 days after onset of symptoms approached 100% for both. For all patients, antibody titers remained above the seroconversion cutoff for all follow-up specimens. CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable performance for both the Siemens COV2T and COV2G test, although seroconversion occurs earlier with the COV2T test.