PurposeIndirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on the human epithelial cell-line HEp-2 (or derivatives) serves as the gold standard in antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening. IIF, and its evaluation, is a labor-intensive method, making ANA testing a major challenge for present clinical laboratories. Nowadays, several automated ANA pattern recognition systems are on the market. In the current study, the EUROPattern Suite is evaluated for its use in daily practice in a routine setting.MethodsA total of 1033 consecutive routine samples was used to screen for ANA. Results (positive/negative ANA screening, pattern identification and titer) were compared between software-generated results (EUROPattern) and visual interpretation (observer) of automatically acquired digital images.ResultsConsidering the visual interpretation as reference, a relative sensitivity of 99.3% and a relative specificity of 88.9% were obtained for negative and positive discrimination by the software (EPa). A good agreement between visual and software-based interpretation was observed with respect to pattern recognition (mean kappa: for 7 patterns: 0.7). Interestingly, EPa software distinguished more patterns per positive sample than the observer (on average 1.5 and 1.2, respectively). Finally, a concordance of 99.3% was observed within the range of 1 titer step difference between EPa and observer.ConclusionsThe ANA IIF results reported by the EPa software are in very good agreement with the results reported by the observer with respect to being negative/positive, pattern recognition and titer, making automated ANA IIF evaluation an objective and time-efficient tool for routine testing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13317-018-0108-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The ANCA consensus prescribes screening by indirect immunofluorescence on neutrophils. We evaluated the first automated ANCA-pattern recognition system. C-ANCA (n = 39) and P-ANCA (n = 40) samples were selected from patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Non-AAV controls included sera from healthy controls (n = 40), sera with possible interfering antibodies (n = 46), or miscellaneous ANCA reactivity (n = 31). ANCA slides were analysed by AKLIDES and routine fluorescence microscopy. The C-ANCA pattern was recognized by routine microscopy in 92% and 97% on ethanol- and formalin-fixed slides, respectively. AKLIDES reported C-ANCA in 74% and 95%, respectively. P-ANCA was recognized by routine microscopy on ethanol-fixed neutrophils in 90%, while AKLIDES reported P-ANCA in 80%. Typically, only 65% and 33% of these samples showed the expected C-ANCA on formalin-fixed neutrophils by routine microscopy and AKLIDES, respectively. A C- or P-ANCA pattern was observed on ethanol-fixed neutrophils in 28% and 23% of the controls by routine microscopy and AKLIDES, respectively. Only 5% of the controls revealed C-ANCA on formalin-fixed neutrophils by routine microscopy and AKLIDES. Altogether, automated ANCA-pattern recognition by AKLIDES is promising. Distinction of C- and P-ANCA is good, but sensitivity on ethanol-fixed neutrophils needs improvement. When optimized, pattern recognition software may play an important role in AAV diagnostics.