Clinical Validity of Anti-Proteinase 3 Antibodies in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Short Meta-Analysis.

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) directed to proteinase 3 (PR3) represent highly established markers for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). PR3-ANCA have also demonstrated utility in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). More specifically, PR3-ANCA discriminate individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) from Crohn's disease (CD) patients and are associated with disease severity, activity, and treatment non-response. Here, we aim to summarize the current data on the diagnostic utility of PR3-ANCA in IBD. A structured, systematic literature review, including three electronic databases, was conducted on June 6th, 2023, to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the QUANTA Flash® PR3 assay in UC vs. CD patients. Electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching. A hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect meta-analysis was conducted using the metandi function, as per the Cochrane collaboration recommendations. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, which considers the risk of bias and applicability. Six out of a hundred and eleven citations met the inclusion criteria and reported QUANTA Flash® PR3 diagnostic accuracy in UC vs. CD (UC, n = 667, CD, n = 682 patients). The sensitivity/specificity point estimate for UC was 34.9%/95.9%. This resulted in a Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) of 12.6. The risk of bias was low in the index test and reference standard domains. Four of the six studies (67%) showed an unclear risk of bias in patient selection and in flow and timing domains. All studies had low concerns about applicability in all the domains. PR3-ANCA measured with the QUANTA Flash® PR3 assay represent novel diagnostic markers in IBD and enables discrimination between UC and CD.

A hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to provide direct comparisons of immunoassays vs. indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified cross-sectional or case-control studies reporting test accuracy data for IIF and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or multiplex immunoassay (MIA). The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect models with random-effects by test. RESULTS: Direct comparisons of IIF with ELISA showed that both tests had good sensitivity (five studies, 2321 patients: ELISA: 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5%, 95.5%] vs. IIF at a cut-off of 1:80: 86.8% [95% CI: 81.8%, 90.6%]; p = 0.4) but low specificity, with considerable variance across assays (ELISA: 56.9% [95% CI: 40.9%, 71.5%] vs. IIF 1:80: 68.0% [95% CI: 39.5%, 87.4%]; p = 0.5). FEIA sensitivity was lower than IIF sensitivity (1:80: p = 0.005; 1:160: p = 0.051); however, FEIA specificity was higher (seven studies, n = 12,311, FEIA 93.6% [95% CI: 89.9%, 96.0%] vs. IIF 1:80 72.4% [95% CI: 62.2%, 80.7%]; p < 0.001; seven studies, n = 3251, FEIA 93.5% [95% CI: 91.1%, 95.3%] vs. IIF 1:160 81.1% [95% CI: 73.4%, 86.9%]; p < 0.0001). CLIA sensitivity was similar to IIF (1:80) with higher specificity (four studies, n = 1981: sensitivity 85.9% [95% CI: 64.7%, 95.3%]; p = 0.86; specificity 86.1% [95% CI: 78.3%, 91.4%]). More data are needed to make firm inferences for CLIA vs. IIF given the wide prediction region. There were too few studies for the meta-analysis of MIA vs. IIF (MIA sensitivity range 73.7%-86%; specificity 53%-91%). CONCLUSIONS: FEIA and CLIA have good specificity compared to IIF. A positive FEIA or CLIA test is useful to support the diagnosis of a CTD. A negative IIF test is useful to exclude a CTD.

The combination of quantitative faecal occult blood test and faecal calprotectin is a cost-effective strategy to avoid colonoscopies in symptomatic patients without relevant pathology.

BACKGROUND: Faecal occult blood test (FOBT) has demonstrated effectiveness in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Faecal calprotectin (FC) has proven efficient for evaluating activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but its value in CRC detection is less established. Most symptomatic patients have benign pathologies, but still undergo colonoscopy in many settings. AIMS: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the combination of FOBT plus FC in symptomatic patients. METHODS: Patients who completed colonic investigations and returned stool samples, on which FOBT and FC were performed, were recruited prospectively. CRC, advanced adenoma, IBD and angiodysplasia were considered as relevant pathologies. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients were included, of whom 87 (21.5%) had relevant pathologies. Sensitivity and specificity were 50.6% and 69.6% for FOBT, 78.2% and 54.4% for FC. Negative predictive value (NPV) was 90.1% for FC and 86.9% for FOBT. NPV for the combination of FOBT and FC was 94.1%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 88.5% and 50.3%. The area under ROC (receiver operator curve) (AUC) was 0.741 for FOBT, 0.736 for FC and 0.816 for the combination. The total cost for visits and procedures was €233,016 (€577/patient). Using a combination of FOBT and FC as pre-endoscopic tool allows colonoscopies to be reduced by 39.4%, reducing total costs by 20.5%. CONCLUSION: The combination of FOBT and FC has a better diagnostic accuracy compared with each test alone. Performing both tests before colonoscopy is a less costly and more effective strategy, reducing unnecessary procedures and complications.

A comparison of a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay versus indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

The aim was to compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) for initial screening of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and to evaluate whether combining IIF with FEIA adds value. A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify fully paired, cross-sectional or case-control studies on ANA screening of CTD reporting results for IIF and FEIA. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. The reference standard was assessed against established classification criteria. The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate and mixed-effects models to allow test results to vary within and across studies. Eighteen studies of good to fair quality were included in the review. IIF had a higher sensitivity than FEIA [cut-off 1:160, 7 studies, 3251 patients, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) versus 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80); cut-off 1:80, 7 studies, 12,311 patients, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) versus 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84)] but lower specificity [1:160, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95); 1:80, 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96)]. A double-positive test had a higher likelihood ratio (LR) for CTD (26.2 (95% CI 23.0-29.9)) than a single positive test (14.4 (95% CI 13.1-15.9) FEIA+, 5.1 (95% CI 4.8-5.4) IIF+). A double-negative test result had more clinical value for ruling out CTD than a single negative test (LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12-0.18) versus 0.21 (95% CI 0.18-0.25) IIF; 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.37) FEIA-). A FEIA+/IIF- discordant result had a higher LR than an IIF+/FEIA- discordant result (LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.7-3.4) versus 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7)). Because of the comparatively higher specificity of FEIA and higher sensitivity of IIF, the combination of FEIA and IIF increases the diagnostic value. Clinicians should be acquainted with the clinical presentation of CTD and aware of the advantages and disadvantages of FEIA and IIF to avoid misinterpretation.