An international multi-center serum protein electrophoresis accuracy and M-protein isotyping study. Part II: limit of detection and follow-up of patients with small M-proteins.

Background Electrophoretic methods to detect, characterize and quantify M-proteins play an important role in the management of patients with monoclonal gammopathies (MGs). Significant uncertainty in the quantification and limit of detection (LOD) is documented when M-proteins are <10 g/L. Using spiked sera, we aimed to assess the variability in intact M-protein quantification and LOD across 16 laboratories. Methods Sera with normal, hypo- or hyper-gammaglobulinemia were spiked with daratumumab or elotuzumab, with concentrations from 0.125 to 10 g/L (n = 62) along with a beta-migrating sample (n = 9). Laboratories blindly analyzed samples according to their serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP)/isotyping standard operating procedures. LOD and intra-laboratory percent coefficient of variation (%CV) were calculated and further specified with regard to the method (gel/capillary electrophoresis [CZE]), gating strategy (perpendicular drop [PD]/tangent skimming [TS]), isotyping (immunofixation/immunosubtraction [ISUB]) and manufacturer (Helena/Sebia). Results All M-proteins ≥1 g/L were detected by SPEP. With isotyping the LOD was moderately more sensitive than with SPEP. The intensity of polyclonal background had the biggest negative impact on LOD. Independent of the method used, the intra-laboratory imprecision of M-protein quantification was small (mean CV = 5.0%). Low M-protein concentration and high polyclonal background had the strongest negative impact on intra-laboratory precision. All laboratories were able to follow trend of M-protein concentrations down to 1 g/L. Conclusions In this study, we describe a large variation in the reported LOD for both SPEP and isotyping; overall LOD is most affected by the polyclonal immunoglobulin background. Satisfactory intra-laboratory precision was demonstrated. This indicates that the quantification of small M-proteins to monitor patients over time is appropriate, when subsequent testing is performed within the same laboratory.

An international multi-center serum protein electrophoresis accuracy and M-protein isotyping study. Part I: factors impacting limit of quantitation of serum protein electrophoresis.

Background Serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) is used to quantify the serum monoclonal component or M-protein, for diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies. Significant imprecision and inaccuracy pose challenges in reporting small M-proteins. Using therapeutic monoclonal antibody-spiked sera and a pooled beta-migrating M-protein, we aimed to assess SPEP limitations and variability across 16 laboratories in three continents. Methods Sera with normal, hypo- or hypergammaglobulinemia were spiked with daratumumab, Dara (cathodal migrating), or elotuzumab, Elo (central-gamma migrating), with concentrations from 0.125 to 10 g/L (n = 62) along with a beta-migrating sample (n = 9). Provided with total protein (reverse biuret, Siemens), laboratories blindly analyzed samples according to their SPEP and immunofixation (IFE) or immunosubtraction (ISUB) standard operating procedures. Sixteen laboratories reported the perpendicular drop (PD) method of gating the M-protein, while 10 used tangent skimming (TS). A mean percent recovery range of 80%-120% was set as acceptable. The inter-laboratory %CV was calculated. Results Gamma globulin background, migration pattern and concentration all affect the precision and accuracy of quantifying M-proteins by SPEP. As the background increases, imprecision increases and accuracy decreases leading to overestimation of M-protein quantitation especially evident in hypergamma samples, and more prominent with PD. Cathodal migrating M-proteins were associated with less imprecision and higher accuracy compared to central-gamma migrating M-proteins, which is attributed to the increased gamma background contribution in M-proteins migrating in the middle of the gamma fraction. There is greater imprecision and loss of accuracy at lower M-protein concentrations. Conclusions This study suggests that quantifying exceedingly low concentrations of M-proteins, although possible, may not yield adequate accuracy and precision between laboratories.

Utility of Antinuclear Antibody Screening by Various Methods in a Clinical Laboratory Patient Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Antinuclear antibody (ANA)5 testing is routinely performed during evaluation of patients with a suspected connective tissue disease (CTD), yet the question of which method is most appropriate remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of ANA testing by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), an immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and a multiplex immunoassay (MIA) in a routine laboratory population. METHODS: Samples (n = 1000) were collected from specimens submitted for ANA testing by EIA (Bio-Rad). All samples were subsequently analyzed by IFA (Zeus) and MIA (Bio-Rad). The sample cohort was weighted to represent the routine testing population. Diagnostic information was obtained by chart review. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of a CTD, ROC curve analysis demonstrated no significant differences between IFA (area under the curve 0.81) and EIA (0.84) (P = 0.25), with overlay of a single point for the MIA. When normalized to a specificity of approximately 90%, the sensitivities of the MIA, EIA, and IFA were 67%, 67%, and 56%, respectively. By varying the clinical cutoff, the IFA could achieve the highest sensitivity of 94%; however, the corresponding specificity was only 43%. In contrast, a strongly positive EIA had a specificity of 97%, although, at this cutoff, the sensitivity was only 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall diagnostic performance of the IFA, EIA, and MIA were not statistically different, the clinical sensitivity and specificity varied dramatically based on the positive/negative cutoff. Knowledge about the performance characteristics of each method will significantly aid in the interpretation of ANA testing.

Comparative usefulness of deamidated gliadin antibodies in the diagnosis of celiac disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Serologic tests are used frequently in celiac disease diagnosis. Gliadin antibodies generally lack the accuracy required for proper diagnosis. We evaluated the value of deamidated gliadin antibody measurements in the diagnosis and follow-up evaluation of celiac disease and compared their potential usefulness with that of gliadin and tissue-transglutaminase antibodies. METHODS: We tested deamidated gliadin, gliadin, and tissue-transglutaminase-immunoglobulin (Ig)A and -IgG in 216 biopsy-selected subjects including 92 biopsy-proven untreated celiac patients (46% with total villous atrophy and 54% with partial villous atrophy) and 124 biopsy-proven nonceliac controls. Fifty-nine celiac patients also were tested after treatment with a gluten-free diet. Antibodies were measured by commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Deamidated gliadin-IgA+G was detected using a conjugate reactive to both isotypes, which gives a positive if either isotype is present. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of deamidated gliadin-IgA (74%, 95%, and 86%), deamidated gliadin-IgG (65%, 98%, and 84%), and deamidated gliadin-IgA+G (75%, 94%, and 86%) were superior to gliadin-IgA (63%, 90%, and 79%) (P < .05) and gliadin-IgG (42%, 90%, and 69%) (P < .01), and were similar to tissue-transglutaminase-IgA (78%, 98%, and 90%) before treatment. The sensitivity of IgA isotype for all tests was significantly greater in celiac patients with total villous atrophy compared with those with partial villous atrophy (P < .05). The proportion of positive test results for all tests decreased significantly after treatment (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Deamidated gliadin antibody is a better diagnostic test for celiac disease than the conventional gliadin antibody testing; although histopathology remains the gold standard test for diagnosis of celiac patients.