Detection of myositis-specific antibodies: additional notes

Mähler, Michael; Fritzler, Marvin J.

doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213153

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also believe that harmonisation and standardisation of actual assay implementation should be part of this discussion. Related to this, we also fully agree with Mahler and Fritzler3 that the issue of internal antibody-specific controls and calibration of these assays should be addressed. Moreover, from a clinical point of view, we think that assay results should be interpreted in relation to longitudinally collected clinical data.…”

supporting

confidence: 87%

Response to: ‘Detection of myositis-specific antibodies: additional notes’ by Infantino et al

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 87%

Response to: ‘Detection of myositis-specific antibodies: additional notes’ by Infantino et al

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Careful evaluation of autoantibody assays for the detection of MSA and MAA is of utmost importance since some of these antibodies are included or being considered for IIM classification criteria (1, 8–10, 14, 15). Although only anti-Jo-1 antibodies have been included in the recent EULAR/ACR classification criteria for IIM, it was acknowledged that several other MSA also carry clinical value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since most of the clinical associations of MSA and MAA have been established using IP, it is important to also compare newer technologies, such as LIA and PMAT to IP (10). At present, besides IP, mostly LIA and dot blot (DB) assays are routinely used for the detection of MSA, which are convenient tools for the simultaneous detection of various antibodies, but are also accompanied by some limitations including the lack of true quality controls (14), lack of sensitivity for some analytes and subjectivity in interpretation (16). To address the subjectivity of LIA and DB, automated scanning systems have been developed and introduced (16, 17) that allow for a ‘semi-quantitative’ assessment and thus for the estimation of antibody levels (titers).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46–0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.

show abstract

“…I would particularly like to share our own immunology laboratory experience by expanding on the letter entitled ‘Detection of myositis-specific antibodies: additional notes’ by M Mahler and M Fritzler4 with which we wholly agree.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%