Analytical variability in the determination of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies: the strong need of a better definition of the old and new tests.

Anti-dsDNA antibodies are a heterogeneous group of antibodies, quite specific for SLE. Their variability is related to the assay used, the immunoglobulin class secondary antibody, and the dsDNA source. The standardization of measuring anti-dsDNA antibodies is still poor and different methods yield different results. Several novel technologies were developed during the last decades that represent viable alternatives to the traditional methods such as the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) and multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI). Additionally, positive results for anti-dsDNA antibodies can be detected in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) treated with different biologics reducing its clinical specificity for SLE. Anti-dsDNA antibody levels were evaluated in 246 patient samples: 70 SLE and 176 disease control (including 96 IA during treatment with different biologics), using three enzyme immunoassays (indirect enzyme immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories; chemiluminescent immunoassay, Inova Diagnostics; multiplex flow immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories) and three Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence tests (CLIFT) (Euroimmun AG, Bio-Rad Laboratories, INOVA Diagnostics). Diagnostic performances were assessed both including and excluding the IA patients. Agreements, measured by the Cohen's Kappa between all methods, ranged from moderate to substantial (0.47-0.68). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 5.7% by CLIFT A up to 33.3% provided by EIA while the clinical specificities varied from 89.8% by MFI to 98.9% provided by CLIFT B and C. Newer technologies, such as MFI and CIA, showed great potential as a diagnostic application. Significant variations among anti-dsDNA antibody assays were observed confirming the lack of standardization.

The inter-observer reading variability in anti-nuclear antibodies indirect (ANA) immunofluorescence test: A multicenter evaluation and a review of the literature.

Recently there has been an increase demand for Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) tools to support clinicians in the field of Indirect ImmunoFluorescence (IIF), as the novel digital imaging reading approach can help to overcome the reader subjectivity. Nevertheless, a large multicenter evaluation of the inter-observer reading variability in this field is still missing. This work fills this gap as we evaluated 556 consecutive samples, for a total of 1679 images, collected in three laboratories with IIF expertise using HEp-2 cell substrate (MBL) at 1:80 screening dilution according to conventional procedures. In each laboratory, the images were blindly classified by two experts into three intensity classes: positive, negative, and weak positive. Positive and weak positive ANA-IIF results were categorized by the predominant fluorescence pattern among six main classes. Data were pairwise analyzed and the inter-observer reading variability was measured by Cohen's kappa test, revealing a pairwise agreement little further away than substantial both for fluorescence intensity and for staining pattern recognition (k=0.602 and k=0.627, respectively). We also noticed that the inter-observer reading variability decreases when it is measured with respect to a gold standard classification computed on the basis of labels assigned by the three laboratories. These data show that laboratory agreement improves using digital images and comparing each single human evaluation to potential reference data, suggesting that a solid gold standard is essential to properly make use of CAD systems in routine work lab.

The burden of the variability introduced by the HEp-2 assay kit and the CAD system in ANA indirect immunofluorescence test.

According to the recent recommendations of the American College of Rheumatology, ANA Task Force, IIF technique should be considered the gold standard in antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) testing. To overcome the lack of standardization, biomedical industries have developed several computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems. Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive samples with suspected autoimmune diseases were tested for ANA by means of IIF on routinely HEp-2 assay kit (Euroimmun AG). Assignment of result was made if consensus for positive/negative was reached by at least 2 out of 3 expert physicians. ANA-IIF was also carried out using 3 CAD systems: Zenit G-Sight (n = 84), Helios (n = 85) and NOVA View (n = 92); human evaluation was repeated on the same substrate of each CAD system (Immco, Aesku and Inova HEp-2 cells, respectively). To anonymize the results, we randomly named these three systems as A, B and C. We ran a statistical analysis computing several measures of agreement between the ratings, and we also improved the evaluation by using the Wilcoxon's test for nonparametric data. Agreement between the human readings on routinely HEp-2 assay kit and human readings on CAD HEp-2 assay was substantial for A (k = 0.82) and B (k = 0.72), and almost perfect for C (k = 0.89). Such readings were statistically different only in case A. Comparing experts' readings with the readings of CAD systems, when the samples were prepared using CAD HEp-2 assay kits, we found almost perfect agreement for B and C (k = 0.86; k = 0.82) and substantial agreement for A (k = 0.73). Again, human and CAD readings were statistically different only in A. When we compared the readings of medical experts on routinely HEp-2 assay kit with the output of the CAD systems that worked using their own slides, we found substantial agreement for all the systems (A: k = 0.62; B: k = 0.65; C: k = 0.71). Such readings were not statistically different. The change of the assay kit and/or the introduction of a CAD system affect the laboratory reporting, with an evident impact on the autoimmune laboratory workflow. The CAD systems may represent one of the most important novel elements of harmonization in the autoimmunity field, reducing intra- and inter-laboratory variability in a new vision of the diagnostic autoimmune platform.