Alexander Lenard, Andreas Rapp, Steffen Busch, Peter Findeisen
{"title":"Method comparison of diabetes mellitus associated autoantibodies in serum specimens.","authors":"Alexander Lenard, Andreas Rapp, Steffen Busch, Peter Findeisen","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2025-0137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Autoantibodies against structure elements of the pancreas are an essential part of laboratory diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The heterogeneity of current methods and difficult inter-assay comparability of results poses challenges to both clinical interpretation as well as research integrity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a method validation study comparing the measurement of autoantibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), islet antigen 2 (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A) on three commercially available platforms (EUROLabWorkstation analyzer, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); iFlash 1800 (chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA); Maglumi 800 (CLIA)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the results from EUROLabWorkstation analyzer that was routinely used in our laboratory, the Maglumi demonstrated an acceptable agreement and deviation for GADA (75.4-35.8 %) and IA-2A (71.7-50.3 %). The iFlash displayed less favorable results with agreement and deviation for GADA (51.5-108.8 %) and IA-2A (68-32.5 %). While the iFlash showed excellent agreement for ZnT8A, the Maglumi produced almost exclusively negative results below a 200 U/mL threshold which results in severe underestimation of results on the Maglumi. Overall, no consistent agreement was observed across all three parameters among the CLIA devices tested.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study reveals significant and clinically relevant discrepancies in the detection of GADA and IA-2A when comparing CLIA devices to the ELISA method routinely used in our laboratory. For individual antibodies up to 65 % of patients who tested positive using ELISA showed negative or borderline results on at least one CLIA device. These deviations are unpredictable and cannot be detected through standard calibration and internal control procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-0137","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Autoantibodies against structure elements of the pancreas are an essential part of laboratory diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The heterogeneity of current methods and difficult inter-assay comparability of results poses challenges to both clinical interpretation as well as research integrity.
Methods: We conducted a method validation study comparing the measurement of autoantibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), islet antigen 2 (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A) on three commercially available platforms (EUROLabWorkstation analyzer, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); iFlash 1800 (chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA); Maglumi 800 (CLIA)).
Results: Compared to the results from EUROLabWorkstation analyzer that was routinely used in our laboratory, the Maglumi demonstrated an acceptable agreement and deviation for GADA (75.4-35.8 %) and IA-2A (71.7-50.3 %). The iFlash displayed less favorable results with agreement and deviation for GADA (51.5-108.8 %) and IA-2A (68-32.5 %). While the iFlash showed excellent agreement for ZnT8A, the Maglumi produced almost exclusively negative results below a 200 U/mL threshold which results in severe underestimation of results on the Maglumi. Overall, no consistent agreement was observed across all three parameters among the CLIA devices tested.
Conclusions: Our study reveals significant and clinically relevant discrepancies in the detection of GADA and IA-2A when comparing CLIA devices to the ELISA method routinely used in our laboratory. For individual antibodies up to 65 % of patients who tested positive using ELISA showed negative or borderline results on at least one CLIA device. These deviations are unpredictable and cannot be detected through standard calibration and internal control procedures.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically.
CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France).
Topics:
- clinical biochemistry
- clinical genomics and molecular biology
- clinical haematology and coagulation
- clinical immunology and autoimmunity
- clinical microbiology
- drug monitoring and analysis
- evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers
- disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes)
- new reagents, instrumentation and technologies
- new methodologies
- reference materials and methods
- reference values and decision limits
- quality and safety in laboratory medicine
- translational laboratory medicine
- clinical metrology
Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!