Longitudinal analysis of ANA in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort.
Longitudinal analysis of ANA in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222168
复制
发表时间：
2022-08
影响因子：
27.4
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
从小型SLE队列的横断面研究中得出的一种看法是，抗核抗体(ANA)检测之间存在显著差异，这影响了临床医生的诊断和随访方法。我们比较了三种抗核抗体检测方法，对一个大型国际事件的系统性红斑狼疮队列进行了纵向分析，定期复查，并跟踪观察了五年。人口统计学、临床和血清学数据来自于第三年和第五年登记的805名SLE患者。在一个中心实验室进行了两种Hep-2间接免疫荧光分析(IFA1、IFA2)、酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA法)和SLE相关自身抗体。分别使用McNemar、Wilcoxon和Kappa统计方法比较阳性、滴度/单位和IFA模式的频率。在登记时，IFA1的抗核抗体阳性率(≥1：80)为96.1%(中位数滴度为1：1280[IQR1：640-1：5120])，IFA2为98.3%(1：2560[IQR1：640-1：5120])，ELISA为96.6%(176.3AU[IQR 106.4-203.5])。在登记时，99.6%的患者至少有一项ANA检测是阳性的。在第5年，IFAS的抗核抗体阳性率(IFA1 95.2%；IFA2 98.9%)仍然很高，而ELISA的阳性率有所下降(91.3%，p<；0.001)。总体而言，在所有时间点，ANA阳性符合率为91%，IFA1和≥之间IFA模式的符合率为71%。在新近发病的系统性红斑狼疮中，三种抗核抗体检测显示出可互换性，阳性和滴度/单位的比例都很高。然而，在五年的随访中，ANA检测的表现有轻微的差异。在考虑诊断为系统性红斑狼疮的临床情况下，ELISA或Hep-2 IFA的阴性测试可能需要反射测试。
A perception derived from cross-sectional studies of small SLE cohorts is that there is a marked discrepancy between antinuclear antibody (ANA) assays, which impacts on clinician’s approach to diagnosis and follow-up. We compared three ANA assays in a longitudinal analysis of a large international incident SLE cohort retested regularly and followed for five years. Demographic, clinical, and serological data was from 805 SLE patients at enrolment, year 3 and 5. Two HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFA1, IFA2), an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and SLE-related autoantibodies were performed in one central laboratory. Frequencies of positivity, titres/units, and IFA patterns were compared using McNemar, Wilcoxon, and kappa statistics, respectively. At enrolment, ANA positivity (≥1:80) was 96.1% by IFA1 (median titre 1:1280 [IQR 1:640–1:5120]), 98.3% by IFA2 (1:2560 [IQR 1:640–1:5120]), and 96.6% by ELISA (176.3AU [IQR 106.4–203.5]). At least one ANA assay was positive for 99.6% of patients at enrolment. At year 5, ANA positivity by IFAs (IFA1 95.2%; IFA2 98.9%) remained high, while there was a decrease in ELISA positivity (91.3%, p<0.001). Overall, there was >91% agreement in ANA positivity at all time points and ≥71% agreement in IFA patterns between IFA1 and IFA2. In recent-onset SLE, three ANA assays demonstrated commutability with a high proportion of positivity and titres/units. However, over five years follow-up, there was modest variation in ANA assay performance. In clinical situations where the SLE diagnosis is being considered, a negative test by either the ELISA or HEp-2 IFA may require reflex testing.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Choi MY;Clarke AE;St Pierre Y;Hanly JG;Urowitz MB;Romero-Diaz J;Gordon C;Bae SC;Bernatsky S;Wallace DJ;Merrill JT;Isenberg DA;Rahman A;Ginzler EM;Petri M;Bruce IN;Dooley MA;Fortin PR;Gladman DD;Sanchez-Guerrero J;Steinsson K;Ramsey-Goldman R;Khamashta MA;Aranow C;Alarcón GS;Manzi S;Nived O;Zoma AA;van Vollenhoven RF;Ramos-Casals M;Ruiz-Irastorza G;Lim SS;Kalunian KC;Inanc M;Kamen DL;Peschken CA;Jacobsen S;Askanase A;Stoll T;Buyon J;Mahler M;Fritzler MJ
通讯作者：
Fritzler MJ
DOI：
10.1007/s13317-016-0075-0
发表时间：
2016-12
期刊：
Auto- immunity highlights
影响因子：
--
作者：
Damoiseaux J;von Mühlen CA;Garcia-De La Torre I;Carballo OG;de Melo Cruvinel W;Francescantonio PL;Fritzler MJ;Herold M;Mimori T;Satoh M;Andrade LE;Chan EK;Conrad K
通讯作者：
Conrad K
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Isenberg, D. A.;Ramsey-Goldman, R.;Hanly, J. G.
通讯作者：
Hanly, J. G.
影响因子：
158.5
作者：
Arbuckle, MR;McClain, MT;Harley, JB
通讯作者：
Harley, JB
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
Fritzler MJ;Wiik A;Fritzler ML;Barr SG
通讯作者：
Barr SG