RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence methods for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a routine clinical laboratory setting. METHODS: A total of 227 samples were tested by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antigen specificity for antiproteinase 3 and antimyeloperoxidase. The proportions of positive samples were compared by McNemar hypotheses and agreement was described by Cohen's Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The agreement of the tests was 96.5%, and the Kappa coefficient obtained was 0.70 (95%CI: 0.50-0.90; p<0.001). Considering indirect immunofluorescence as the gold standard, the sensitivity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 0.62 and the specificity was 0.99, with diagnostic accuracy in 96% of cases. Some samples were negative in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and positive in indirect immunofluorescence. This situation occurred in all immunofluorescence patterns, but particularly in atypical patterns. Two samples with antiproteinase 3 positivity were considered negative in indirect immunofluorescence. CONCLUSION: The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay had high specificity but lower sensitivity. The performance of indirect immunofluorescence increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the search for antiproteinase 3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may also add diagnostic power.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Anticitoplasma de Neutrófilos/sangue , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática/métodos , Técnica Indireta de Fluorescência para Anticorpo/métodos , Doenças Autoimunes/sangue , Doenças Autoimunes/diagnóstico , Doenças Autoimunes/imunologia , Humanos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Padrões de Referência , Valores de Referência , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence methods for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a routine clinical laboratory setting. Methods A total of 227 samples were tested by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antigen specificity for antiproteinase 3 and antimyeloperoxidase. The proportions of positive samples were compared by McNemar hypotheses and agreement was described by Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Results The agreement of the tests was 96.5%, and the Kappa coefficient obtained was 0.70 (95%CI: 0.50-0.90; p<0.001). Considering indirect immunofluorescence as the gold standard, the sensitivity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 0.62 and the specificity was 0.99, with diagnostic accuracy in 96% of cases. Some samples were negative in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and positive in indirect immunofluorescence. This situation occurred in all immunofluorescence patterns, but particularly in atypical patterns. Two samples with antiproteinase 3 positivity were considered negative in indirect immunofluorescence. Conclusion The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay had high specificity but lower sensitivity. The performance of indirect immunofluorescence increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the search for antiproteinase 3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may also add diagnostic power.
RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar o desempenho das metodologias de ensaio imunoenzimático e imunofluorescência indireta para a detecção de anticorpos anticitoplasma de neutrófilos em um contexto de laboratório clínico de rotina. Métodos Foram testadas 227 amostras pelas metodologias de imunofluorescência indireta e ensaio imunoenzimático com especificidades para anticorpos antiproteinase-3 e antimieloperoxidase. As proporções de amostras positivas foram comparadas por hipóteses de McNemar, e a concordância foi descrita pelo coeficiente Kappa de Cohen. Resultados A concordância dos testes foi 96,5%, e o coeficiente Kappa obtido foi 0,70 (IC95%: 0,50-0,90; p<0,001). Utilizando a imunofluorescência indireta como padrão-ouro, a sensibilidade do ensaio imunoenzimático foi de 0,62 e a especificidade, 0,99, com acurácia diagnóstica em 96% dos casos. Algumas amostras apresentaram resultados negativos por ensaio imunoenzimático e positivos por imunofluorescência. Isso ocorreu em amostras com vários padrões de fluorescência, mas particularmente nos casos com padrões atípicos. Duas amostras com positividade antiproteinase 3 foram consideradas negativas por imunofluorescência. Conclusão Os métodos de ensaio imunoenzimático tiveram alta especificidade, mas sensibilidade inferior. A realização da imunofluorescência indireta aumenta a sensibilidade diagnóstica, ao mesmo tempo que a pesquisa de antiproteinase 3 por ensaio imunoenzimático também pode agregar poder diagnóstico.
