CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kern, P.
Right arrow Articles by Hiesche, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kern, P.
Right arrow Articles by Hiesche, K.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Substance via MeSH

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 2000, p. 72-78, Vol. 7, No. 1
1071-412X/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Measurement of Antinuclear Antibodies: Assessment of Different Test Systems

P. Kern,1,* M. Kron,2 and K. Hiesche3

Section of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Immunology, University Hospital Ulm,1 and Department of Biometry and Medical Documentation, University of Ulm,2 D-89081 Ulm, and Schauinslandstrasse 51, Stegen,3 Germany

Received 15 June 1999/Returned for modification 30 July 1999/Accepted 14 October 1999

The performance of rat liver and HEp-2 in the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) was studied by two independent sites and compared against an ANA enzyme immunoassay (EIA) screen and EIA systems for the measurement of antibodies to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and ENA. Sixty-two sera from patients with connective tissue disease (CTD) and 398 from controls suffering from other disorders were included. The level of agreement was, for HEp-2 and rat liver (within one site), 82.0% (ANA positive/ANA negative) and 51.0% (ANA pattern); and for HEp2- and HEp-2 (between sites), 71.8 and 86.5%. On sera with the ANA homogeneous pattern, the measurement of anti-ENA EIA added little to the detection rate with anti-dsDNA EIA alone. On ANA speckled sera, the EIA reactivity depended on the reaction of the mitotic cells: while sera with positive mitoses reacted similarly to ANA homogeneous sera, in those with negative mitoses the measurement of anti-ENA added about 10% to the detection rate achieved with anti-dsDNA alone. The measurement of anti-Scl-70 and anti-Jo-1 did not markedly improve the positive rate with classical ENA (anti-SSA, -SSB, -Sm, and -RNP) alone, raising doubts about the cost efficiency of including these measurements in unselected sera. The ANA EIA identified patients with CTD at a rate similar to that for rat liver and HEp-2. However, up to 98% of the sera found to be negative by ANA EIA but positive by use of rat liver and HEp-2 were from controls. Thus, the ANA EIA may possible be used as an alternative screen, particularly in laboratories with a high frequency of sera from patients not suffering from CTD.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Section of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Immunology, University Hospital Ulm, Robert-Kochstr. 8, D-89081 Ulm, Germany. Phone: 0731-5024420. Fax: 0731-5024422.


Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 2000, p. 72-78, Vol. 7, No. 1
1071-412X/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.