Laboratory screening of connective tissue diseases by a new automated ENA screening assay (EliA Symphony) in clinically defined patients

González, C.; García‐Berrocal, Belén; Pérez, Marta; Navajo, José Alejandro; Herráez, Óscar; González-Buitrago, José Manuel

doi:10.1016/j.cccn.2005.03.042

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have also reported similar results of IIF and CTD screen [6,7]. The highest reactivity of CTD screen was found in patients with SLE, followed by those with MCT and RA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The sensitivity of IIF was 91%, while that of solid-phase assays ranged from 49% to 89% according to Bernardini et al [30] and Bonilla et al [31]. González et al [6] showed that the sensitivity and specificity of IIF were 69% and 89%, while those of EliA Symphony were 63% and 91%, respectively. The slight differences in sensitivity and specificity might be caused by different populations and IIF titer cut-offs among the studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commercially available EIA kits allow automatization and quantification of ANA screening. A few reports have evaluated the performance of the EIA kits, which were similar to the CTD screen [6–8]. The previously reported EliA Symphony (Pharmacia Diagnostics, Freiburg, Germany) detects antibodies to 9 antigens, including SSA/Ro, SSB/La, U1RNP (RNP70, A, C), Scl-70, Jo-1, Centromere B, and Sm [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few reports have evaluated the performance of the EIA kits, which were similar to the CTD screen [6–8]. The previously reported EliA Symphony (Pharmacia Diagnostics, Freiburg, Germany) detects antibodies to 9 antigens, including SSA/Ro, SSB/La, U1RNP (RNP70, A, C), Scl-70, Jo-1, Centromere B, and Sm [6]. The 17 antigens of the Phadia EliA CTD screen (Phadia AB, Freiburg, Germany and Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden), described by Op De Beeck et al [7] and Parker et al [8], were not different from those in the CTD screen in our study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases

Jeong

Yang²,

Hwang

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utilities of the automated connective tissues disease screening assay, CTD screen, in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases. A total of 1093 serum samples were assayed using CTD screen and indirect immunofluorescent (IIF) methods. Among them, 162 were diagnosed with systemic rheumatic disease, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCT). The remaining 931 with non-systemic rheumatic disease were assigned to the control group. The median ratios of CTD screen tests were significantly higher in the systemic rheumatic disease group than in the control group. The positive likelihood ratios of the CTD screen were higher than those of IIF in patients with total rheumatic diseases (4.1 vs. 1.6), including SLE (24.3 vs. 10.7). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of the CTD screen for discriminating total rheumatic diseases, RA, SLE, and MCT from controls were 0.68, 0.56, 0.92 and 0.80, respectively. The ROC-AUCs of the combinations with IIF were significantly higher in patients with total rheumatic diseases (0.72) and MCT (0.85) than in those of the CTD screen alone. Multivariate analysis indicated that both the CTD screen and IIF were independent variables for predicting systemic rheumatic disease. CTD screen alone and in combination with IIF were a valuable diagnostic tool for predicting systemic rheumatic diseases, particularly for SLE.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have also reported similar results of IIF and CTD screen [6,7]. The highest reactivity of CTD screen was found in patients with SLE, followed by those with MCT and RA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases

Jeong

Yang²,

Hwang

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, IFAs have some analytical disadvantages, including subjective interpretation and limited automation. To overcome these issues, enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) were developed (8)(9)(10). Although many variations exist, most EIAs for ANA testing use an HEp-2 nuclear extract, supplemented with certain purified antigens, in place of the intact cell.…”

Section: Impact Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of Antinuclear Antibody Screening by Various Methods in a Clinical Laboratory Patient Cohort

Duan

Peters

Ettore

et al. 2016

The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Antinuclear antibody (ANA)5 testing is routinely performed during evaluation of patients with a suspected connective tissue disease (CTD), yet the question of which method is most appropriate remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of ANA testing by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), an immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and a multiplex immunoassay (MIA) in a routine laboratory population. Methods Samples (n = 1000) were collected from specimens submitted for ANA testing by EIA (Bio-Rad). All samples were subsequently analyzed by IFA (Zeus) and MIA (Bio-Rad). The sample cohort was weighted to represent the routine testing population. Diagnostic information was obtained by chart review. Results For the diagnosis of a CTD, ROC curve analysis demonstrated no significant differences between IFA (area under the curve 0.81) and EIA (0.84) (P = 0.25), with overlay of a single point for the MIA. When normalized to a specificity of approximately 90%, the sensitivities of the MIA, EIA, and IFA were 67%, 67%, and 56%, respectively. By varying the clinical cutoff, the IFA could achieve the highest sensitivity of 94%; however, the corresponding specificity was only 43%. In contrast, a strongly positive EIA had a specificity of 97%, although, at this cutoff, the sensitivity was only 40%. Conclusions Although the overall diagnostic performance of the IFA, EIA, and MIA were not statistically different, the clinical sensitivity and specificity varied dramatically based on the positive/negative cutoff. Knowledge about the performance characteristics of each method will significantly aid in the interpretation of ANA testing.

show abstract

New Perspectives in Rheumatology: Biomarkers as Entry Criteria for Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: The Example of Antinuclear Antibodies and Anti‐DNA

Pisetsky

Rovin

Lipsky³

2017

Arthritis & Rheumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory screening of connective tissue diseases by a new automated ENA screening assay (EliA Symphony) in clinically defined patients

Cited by 25 publications

References 15 publications

Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases

Evaluation of an automated connective tissue disease screening assay in Korean patients with systemic rheumatic diseases

Utility of Antinuclear Antibody Screening by Various Methods in a Clinical Laboratory Patient Cohort

New Perspectives in Rheumatology: Biomarkers as Entry Criteria for Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: The Example of Antinuclear Antibodies and Anti‐DNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About