Clinical usefulness of Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer for diagnosing liver cirrhosis and significant fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease: A retrospective single-center study.

Accurate diagnosis of liver cirrhosis (LC) and significant fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is important. The Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi) has emerged as a novel serum biomarker for liver fibrosis; however, insufficient clinical data of M2BPGi are available in patients with CLD. Therefore, we performed a retrospective cohort study to investigate the clinical usefulness of serum M2BPGi for assessing LC and significant fibrosis in CLD patients. We retrospectively reviewed the CLD patients with measured serum M2BPGi at Kosin University Gospel Hospital between January 2016 and December 2019. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the independent factors associated with LC. The diagnostic power of serum M2BPGi for LC and significant fibrosis (≥F2) was evaluated and compared to that of other serum biomarkers using receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC). A total of 454 patients enrolled in this study. M2BPGi (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-2.07) and fibrosis index based on four factors (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.37) were identified as significant independent factors for LC. The AUC of M2BPGi for LC (0.866) and significant fibrosis (0.816) were comparable to those of fibrosis index based on four factors (0.860, 0.773), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (0.806, 0.752), and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (0.759, 0.710). The optimal cut-off values for M2BPGi for LC and significant fibrosis were 1.37 and 0.89, respectively. Serum M2BPGi levels were significantly correlated with liver stiffness measurements (ρ = 0.778). Serum M2BPGi is a reliable noninvasive method for the assessment of LC and significant fibrosis in patients with CLD.

Evaluation of an Automated Screening Assay, Compared to Indirect Immunofluorescence, an Extractable Nuclear Antigen Assay, and a Line Immunoassay in a Large Cohort of Asian Patients with Antinuclear Antibody-Associated Rheumatoid Diseases: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

We assessed the diagnostic utility of the connective tissue disease (CTD) screen as an automated screening test, in comparison with the indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), EliA extractable nuclear antigen (ENA), and line immunoassay (LIA) for patients with antinuclear antibody- (ANA-) associated rheumatoid disease (AARD). A total of 1115 serum samples from two university hospitals were assayed using these four autoantibody-based methods. The AARD group consisted of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). The qualitative results of all four autoantibody assays showed a significant association with AARDs, compared to controls (P < 0.0001 for all). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of the CTD screen for differentiating total AARDs, SLE, SSc, SS, and MCTD from controls were 0.89, 0.93, 0.73, 0.93, and 0.95, respectively. The ROC-AUCs of combination testing with LIA were slightly higher in patients with AARDs (0.92) than those of CTD screen alone. Multivariate analysis indicated that all four autoantibody assays could independently predict AARDs. CTD screening alone and in combination with IIF, EliA ENA, and LIA are potentially valuable diagnostic approaches for predicting AARDs. Combining CTD screen with LIA might be effective for AARD patients.

Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases.

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utilities of the automated connective tissues disease screening assay, CTD screen, in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases. A total of 1093 serum samples were assayed using CTD screen and indirect immunofluorescent (IIF) methods. Among them, 162 were diagnosed with systemic rheumatic disease, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCT). The remaining 931 with non-systemic rheumatic disease were assigned to the control group. The median ratios of CTD screen tests were significantly higher in the systemic rheumatic disease group than in the control group. The positive likelihood ratios of the CTD screen were higher than those of IIF in patients with total rheumatic diseases (4.1 vs. 1.6), including SLE (24.3 vs. 10.7). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of the CTD screen for discriminating total rheumatic diseases, RA, SLE, and MCT from controls were 0.68, 0.56, 0.92 and 0.80, respectively. The ROC-AUCs of the combinations with IIF were significantly higher in patients with total rheumatic diseases (0.72) and MCT (0.85) than in those of the CTD screen alone. Multivariate analysis indicated that both the CTD screen and IIF were independent variables for predicting systemic rheumatic disease. CTD screen alone and in combination with IIF were a valuable diagnostic tool for predicting systemic rheumatic diseases, particularly for SLE.

The RIDA Allergy Screen Versus the Phadiatop Test in 430 Consecutive Patient Specimens.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performances of the Phadiatop test and the RIDA qLine Allergy in specimens from the South Korean population. METHODS: We divided 430 consecutive patient specimens into 4 groups depending on the test results of the 2 assays. We evaluated the degree of agreement between the assays and used the ImmunoCAP sIgE test to identify the allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). RESULTS: Agreement between the 2 tests was significant (k = 0.614, P <.001). When tested with the ImmunoCAP allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) test, 8 of 48 (16.7%) cases that tested RIDA qLine Allergy positive/Phadiatop negative yielded positive results and 34 of 35 (97.1%) RIDA qLine Allergy negative/Phadiatop positive cases yielded positive results in more than 1 of the 14 tested items. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Phadiatop test is more accurate than the RIDA qLine Allergy in discrepant cases.