Adopting the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) classification for reporting: the experience of Italian clinical laboratories.

The indirect immunofluorescence assay on HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA) is still considered the reference method to detect anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) because of its high sensitivity and represents a relevant tool for the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. During the last decade, the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) initiative promoted harmonization and understanding of HEp-2 IFA staining pattern nomenclature, as well as promoting their use in patient care by providing interpretation for HEp-2 IFA test results. In conjunction with a nationwide survey on the evolution of autoantibody diagnostics in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, we focused on the adherence of the Italian laboratories to the ICAP nomenclature analyzing its lights and shadows. The recent ICAP-oriented report, largely used today among Italian laboratories, also represents a further step in harmonizing and improving communication with the clinicians, adding value to laboratory findings and helping with critical clinical decisions.

Automated antinuclear immunofluorescence antibody analysis is a reliable approach in routine clinical laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) assays are recommended as the gold standard method for the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). This study aimed to investigate the reliability of an automated system. METHODS: We compared 3745 serum samples using NOVA View archived images with manual analysis via microscopy. A custom cutoff value was established to distinguish ANA titers and was validated in two clinical laboratories. The automatic ANA pattern recognition system was evaluated, and all ANA-positive sera were subjected to two commercial ANA IIF kits to compare the consistency of the pattern interpretation results. For inconsistent patterns, a third ANA IIF testing kit was utilized. RESULTS: Agreement of the interpretation of the ANA IIF test using the platform of NOVA View and manual microscopy was 96.9%. The local cutoff value to discriminate ANA titers in four main ANA patterns was calculated based on 1390 serum samples. In our laboratory, the titer prediction accuracy was superior to the preset cutoff in NOVA View (p<0.01); the performance was similar in another laboratory (p=0.11). The automatic pattern recognition accuracies of speckled, homogeneous, centromere, nucleolar and nuclear dot patterns were 62.7%, 57.4%, 92.6%, 30.5% and 27.3%, respectively. The consistency of the pattern interpretation results between INOVA and MBL kits was 95.3%. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to establish a custom value-added ANA report. However, confirmation of the digital immunofluorescence images by expert technicians was essential, and suspect results of an ANA pattern should be reconfirmed by another commercial ANA IIF kit to achieve more reliable results.