Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An effective algorithm for the serological diagnosis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: The key role of anti-Ro52 antibodies.
Infantino, M; Manfredi, M; Grossi, V; Benucci, M; Morozzi, G; Tonutti, E; Tampoia, M; Bizzaro, N.
Affiliation
  • Infantino M; SOS Laboratorio Immunologia e Allergologia, Ospedale S. Giovanni di Dio, Firenze, Italy. Electronic address: maria2.infantino@uslcentro.toscana.it.
  • Manfredi M; SOS Laboratorio Immunologia e Allergologia, Ospedale S. Giovanni di Dio, Firenze, Italy.
  • Grossi V; SOS Laboratorio Immunologia e Allergologia, Ospedale S. Giovanni di Dio, Firenze, Italy.
  • Benucci M; SOS Reumatologia, Ospedale S. Giovanni di Dio, Firenze, Italy.
  • Morozzi G; Dip. Scienze Mediche, Chirurgiche e Neuroscienze, Università di Siena, Siena, Italy.
  • Tonutti E; Immunopatologia e Allergologia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Udine, Italy.
  • Tampoia M; Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy.
  • Bizzaro N; Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale San Antonio, Tolmezzo, Italy.
Clin Chim Acta ; 475: 15-19, 2017 Dec.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28986052
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are commonly tested for the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on HEp-2 cell substrates. However, ANA-IIF false negative tests may occur in IIM because some antigens, such as Jo1 and Ro52, may be scarcely expressed on HEp-2 cells. In addition, cytoplasmic staining is often not appropriately investigated by a specific antibody assay, leading to decreased clinical sensitivity of the ANA test. We evaluated the diagnostic impact of different strategies using different combination of myositis-related autoantibody tests.

METHODS:

Sera from 51 patients with an established diagnosis of IIM were tested for ANA by IIF on HEp-2 cells and for myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) and myositis-associated antibodies (MAA) by lineblot methods.

RESULTS:

Forty-four/51 (86.3%) samples tested positive with at least one of the three methods and seven were negative with all methods. Of the 44 positive samples, 9 (20.5%) tested negative for the ANA-IIF test and positive for MAA/MSA. Anti-Ro52 were the most prevalent autoantibodies in IIM patients (21/51; 41%), frequently associated with anti-Jo1 antibodies (13/21; 62%). 13 (16%) anti-Ro52 and anti-Jo1 negative samples were reactive to MSA.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings suggest that when IIM is clinically suspected, the optimal diagnostic algorithm is to associate the ANA-IIF screening test with a specific test for anti-Ro52 and anti-Jo1 antibodies. Should all these tests be negative, serological tests for MSA are recommended.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ribonucleoproteins / Algorithms / Antibodies, Antinuclear / Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect / Myositis Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Clin Chim Acta Year: 2017 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ribonucleoproteins / Algorithms / Antibodies, Antinuclear / Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect / Myositis Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Clin Chim Acta Year: 2017 Document type: Article