Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases
Abstract We investigated the performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening and diagnosis and comparing it to the conventional ANA-IIF. ANA-ELISA is a solid-phase immune assay includes 17 ANA-targeted recombinant antigens; dsDNA, Sm-D, Rib-P, PCNA, U1-RNP (70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (52 and 60), SS-B/La, Centr...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/bbd8ba21bbff43839ede589400c7bae4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:bbd8ba21bbff43839ede589400c7bae4 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:bbd8ba21bbff43839ede589400c7bae42021-12-02T18:03:46ZClinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases10.1038/s41598-021-87366-w2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/bbd8ba21bbff43839ede589400c7bae42021-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87366-whttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract We investigated the performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening and diagnosis and comparing it to the conventional ANA-IIF. ANA-ELISA is a solid-phase immune assay includes 17 ANA-targeted recombinant antigens; dsDNA, Sm-D, Rib-P, PCNA, U1-RNP (70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (52 and 60), SS-B/La, Centromere B, Scl-70, Fibrillarin, RNA Polymerase III, Jo-1, Mi-2, and PM-Scl. During the period between March till December 2016 all requests for ANA from primary, secondary, and tertiary care centers were processed with both techniques; ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA. The electronic medical record of these patients was reviewed looking for CTD diagnosis documented by the Senior rheumatologist. SPSS 22 is used for analysis. Between March and December 2016, a total of 12,439 ANA tests were requested. 1457 patients were assessed by the rheumatologist and included in the analysis. At a cut-off ratio ≥ 1.0 for ANA-ELISA and a dilutional titre ≥ 1:80 for ANA-IIF, the sensitivity of ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA for all CTDs were 63.3% vs 74.8% respectively. For the SLE it was 64.3% vs 76.9%, Sjogren’s Syndrome was 50% vs 76.9% respectively. The overall specificity of ANA-ELISA was 89.05%, which was slightly better than ANA-IIF 86.72%. The clinical performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening showed better sensitivity and specificity as compared to the conventional ANA-IIF in our cohort.Omar Suhail AlsaedLaith Ishaq AlamlihOmar Al-RadidehPrem ChandraSamar AlemadiAbdul-Wahab Al-AllafNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2021) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Omar Suhail Alsaed Laith Ishaq Alamlih Omar Al-Radideh Prem Chandra Samar Alemadi Abdul-Wahab Al-Allaf Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| description |
Abstract We investigated the performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening and diagnosis and comparing it to the conventional ANA-IIF. ANA-ELISA is a solid-phase immune assay includes 17 ANA-targeted recombinant antigens; dsDNA, Sm-D, Rib-P, PCNA, U1-RNP (70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (52 and 60), SS-B/La, Centromere B, Scl-70, Fibrillarin, RNA Polymerase III, Jo-1, Mi-2, and PM-Scl. During the period between March till December 2016 all requests for ANA from primary, secondary, and tertiary care centers were processed with both techniques; ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA. The electronic medical record of these patients was reviewed looking for CTD diagnosis documented by the Senior rheumatologist. SPSS 22 is used for analysis. Between March and December 2016, a total of 12,439 ANA tests were requested. 1457 patients were assessed by the rheumatologist and included in the analysis. At a cut-off ratio ≥ 1.0 for ANA-ELISA and a dilutional titre ≥ 1:80 for ANA-IIF, the sensitivity of ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA for all CTDs were 63.3% vs 74.8% respectively. For the SLE it was 64.3% vs 76.9%, Sjogren’s Syndrome was 50% vs 76.9% respectively. The overall specificity of ANA-ELISA was 89.05%, which was slightly better than ANA-IIF 86.72%. The clinical performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening showed better sensitivity and specificity as compared to the conventional ANA-IIF in our cohort. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Omar Suhail Alsaed Laith Ishaq Alamlih Omar Al-Radideh Prem Chandra Samar Alemadi Abdul-Wahab Al-Allaf |
| author_facet |
Omar Suhail Alsaed Laith Ishaq Alamlih Omar Al-Radideh Prem Chandra Samar Alemadi Abdul-Wahab Al-Allaf |
| author_sort |
Omar Suhail Alsaed |
| title |
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| title_short |
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| title_full |
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| title_fullStr |
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| title_sort |
clinical utility of ana-elisa vs ana-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases |
| publisher |
Nature Portfolio |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/bbd8ba21bbff43839ede589400c7bae4 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT omarsuhailalsaed clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases AT laithishaqalamlih clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases AT omaralradideh clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases AT premchandra clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases AT samaralemadi clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases AT abdulwahabalallaf clinicalutilityofanaelisavsanaimmunofluorescenceinconnectivetissuediseases |
| _version_ |
1718378707411795968 |