Historical Perspective on Antinuclear Antibody Testing.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Gyorgy Abel, M Qasim Ansari, Melissa R Snyder, Anne E Tebo, Mark H Wener, Stanley J Naides
{"title":"Historical Perspective on Antinuclear Antibody Testing.","authors":"Gyorgy Abel, M Qasim Ansari, Melissa R Snyder, Anne E Tebo, Mark H Wener, Stanley J Naides","doi":"10.3899/jrheum.2023-1121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Serum factors binding to cell nuclei were first described in the 1940s, and the antibodies responsible for the binding to self (autoantibodies) were discovered in the late 1950s. Routine standardized testing using a cell line (HEp-2) started in the 1980s and continues to evolve. In addition to the classic immunofluorescence assay (IFA), various immunochemical techniques have been developed for the measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). The complexity of ANA IFA pattern reading and the varying sensitivities, specificities, and overall clinical performance of the alternative methods have often generated controversies and sometimes even confusion among healthcare providers and laboratorians. A better understanding of the historical roots of ANA testing can aid in understanding these controversies and assist with selecting the best-performing methods. In this review, we present historic and contemporary ANA testing methods, highlighting the pros and cons of each. We also provide an overview of the current practice of ANA testing based on several recent large laboratory surveys. For optimal patient care, it is critical that clinicians and laboratorians using ANA testing understand the performance and limitations of the methods used by their institutions, as well as the meaning of the test results. Recently published surveys and standardization efforts initiated by several stakeholder scientific organizations will likely lead to new ANA diagnostic guidelines, to be followed by an improvement in testing practices, management, and outcomes for patients with autoimmune disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":50064,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2023-1121","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Serum factors binding to cell nuclei were first described in the 1940s, and the antibodies responsible for the binding to self (autoantibodies) were discovered in the late 1950s. Routine standardized testing using a cell line (HEp-2) started in the 1980s and continues to evolve. In addition to the classic immunofluorescence assay (IFA), various immunochemical techniques have been developed for the measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). The complexity of ANA IFA pattern reading and the varying sensitivities, specificities, and overall clinical performance of the alternative methods have often generated controversies and sometimes even confusion among healthcare providers and laboratorians. A better understanding of the historical roots of ANA testing can aid in understanding these controversies and assist with selecting the best-performing methods. In this review, we present historic and contemporary ANA testing methods, highlighting the pros and cons of each. We also provide an overview of the current practice of ANA testing based on several recent large laboratory surveys. For optimal patient care, it is critical that clinicians and laboratorians using ANA testing understand the performance and limitations of the methods used by their institutions, as well as the meaning of the test results. Recently published surveys and standardization efforts initiated by several stakeholder scientific organizations will likely lead to new ANA diagnostic guidelines, to be followed by an improvement in testing practices, management, and outcomes for patients with autoimmune disorders.

抗核抗体检测的历史展望。
目的:20世纪40年代首次描述了与细胞核结合的血清因子,50年代末发现了与自身结合的抗体(自身抗体)。使用细胞系(HEp-2)的常规标准化测试始于20世纪80年代,并不断发展。方法:除了经典的免疫荧光法(IFA)外,各种免疫化学技术已被开发用于测定抗核抗体(ANAs)。ANA - IFA模式读取的复杂性以及不同的敏感性、特异性和替代方法的整体临床表现经常在医疗保健提供者和实验室人员之间产生争议,有时甚至是混乱。更好地理解ANA测试的历史根源可以帮助理解这些争议,并帮助选择性能最好的方法。在这篇综述中,我们介绍了历史和现代的ANA测试方法,并强调了每种方法的优缺点。我们还概述了基于最近几个大型实验室调查的ANA测试的当前实践。结论:最佳患者护理关键要求临床医生和实验室人员使用ANA测试了解其机构使用的方法的性能和局限性,以及测试结果的意义。最近公布的调查和由几个利益相关者科学组织发起的标准化工作可能会导致新的ANA诊断指南,随后将改进自身免疫性疾病患者的测试实践、管理和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rheumatology
Journal of Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rheumatology is a monthly international serial edited by Earl D. Silverman. The Journal features research articles on clinical subjects from scientists working in rheumatology and related fields, as well as proceedings of meetings as supplements to regular issues. Highlights of our 41 years serving Rheumatology include: groundbreaking and provocative editorials such as "Inverting the Pyramid," renowned Pediatric Rheumatology, proceedings of OMERACT and the Canadian Rheumatology Association, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews, and supplements on emerging therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信