Evaluation of Diagnostic Significance and Cost Effectiveness of ELISA and IFA for the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Disorders

Deepthi Karumanchi, S. Oommen
{"title":"Evaluation of Diagnostic Significance and Cost Effectiveness of ELISA and IFA for the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Disorders","authors":"Deepthi Karumanchi, S. Oommen","doi":"10.4172/1745-7580.1000155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) is a hallmark of autoimmune diseases. As Clinicopathological classification of autoimmune diseases is difficult without laboratory support, laboratory testing is of helps in diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prediction of the pathological changes by disease activity. Although different tests are available for ANA detection enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the mainstay of diagnosis in most routine laboratories. Indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody test (IFA) though currently the “gold standard” it is not widely practiced. Most studies have used Hep2 cells for the detection of autoantibodies by IFA. However Hep 2000 Ro is superior compared to Hep 2 which lacks capability of detecting some autoantibodies like Ro antibodies. Hence, this study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic value and cost effectiveness of ANA pattern, ELISA with profile testing for patients suspected to have autoimmune disorders. Results: In the present study we observed high prevalence of autoimmune diseases in females (75.82%).ANA-ELISA in criteria matched cases with respect to ANA-IFA had a low sensitivity (59% versus 80%), higher specificity (84% versus 70%). Statistical analysis of ELISA and IFA with respect to ANA Profile showed a very less sensitivity by ELISA over IFA (51% vs. 78%) and equal specificity (70-72%) in 142 criteria matched cases. Conclusions: Statistically significant differences between ELISA and IFA infers IFA-ANA is a very appropriate method for screening purposes also IFA have capability of finding anti-mitochondrial and other cytoplasmic antibodies, which is not possible with ELISA.","PeriodicalId":73347,"journal":{"name":"Immunome research","volume":"54 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/1745-7580.1000155","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Immunome research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/1745-7580.1000155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) is a hallmark of autoimmune diseases. As Clinicopathological classification of autoimmune diseases is difficult without laboratory support, laboratory testing is of helps in diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prediction of the pathological changes by disease activity. Although different tests are available for ANA detection enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the mainstay of diagnosis in most routine laboratories. Indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody test (IFA) though currently the “gold standard” it is not widely practiced. Most studies have used Hep2 cells for the detection of autoantibodies by IFA. However Hep 2000 Ro is superior compared to Hep 2 which lacks capability of detecting some autoantibodies like Ro antibodies. Hence, this study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic value and cost effectiveness of ANA pattern, ELISA with profile testing for patients suspected to have autoimmune disorders. Results: In the present study we observed high prevalence of autoimmune diseases in females (75.82%).ANA-ELISA in criteria matched cases with respect to ANA-IFA had a low sensitivity (59% versus 80%), higher specificity (84% versus 70%). Statistical analysis of ELISA and IFA with respect to ANA Profile showed a very less sensitivity by ELISA over IFA (51% vs. 78%) and equal specificity (70-72%) in 142 criteria matched cases. Conclusions: Statistically significant differences between ELISA and IFA infers IFA-ANA is a very appropriate method for screening purposes also IFA have capability of finding anti-mitochondrial and other cytoplasmic antibodies, which is not possible with ELISA.
ELISA和IFA诊断自身免疫性疾病的诊断意义和成本效益评价
背景:抗核抗体(ANA)的存在是自身免疫性疾病的标志。由于自身免疫性疾病的临床病理分类难以在没有实验室支持的情况下进行,因此实验室检测有助于疾病活动性的诊断、治疗、预后和病理变化的预测。虽然有不同的检测方法可用于ANA检测,但酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)是大多数常规实验室诊断的主要方法。间接免疫荧光抗核抗体试验(IFA)虽然是目前的“金标准”,但尚未得到广泛应用。大多数研究使用Hep2细胞进行IFA检测自身抗体。但Hep 2000 Ro优于Hep 2,而Hep 2缺乏检测Ro抗体等自身抗体的能力。因此,本研究旨在比较ANA模式、ELISA和基因谱检测对疑似自身免疫性疾病患者的诊断价值和成本效益。结果:在本研究中,我们观察到女性自身免疫性疾病的高患病率(75.82%)。在标准匹配的病例中,ANA-ELISA对ANA-IFA的敏感性较低(59%对80%),特异性较高(84%对70%)。ELISA和IFA对ANA谱的统计分析显示,在142例标准匹配的病例中,ELISA对IFA的敏感性非常低(51% vs. 78%),特异性相同(70-72%)。结论:ELISA与IFA的差异有统计学意义,说明IFA- ana是一种非常合适的筛选方法,IFA具有发现抗线粒体等细胞质抗体的能力,这是ELISA所不能做到的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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