Cargando…

The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis

BACKGROUND: A myositis-specific autoantibody can now be identified in the majority of patients with myositis. They identify homogeneous patient subgroups and are key tools in developing a personalized approach to disease management. There is substantial clinical interest in exploiting myositis autoa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tansley, Sarah L., Snowball, Julia, Pauling, John D., Lissina, Anya, Kuwana, Masataka, Rider, Lisa G., Rönnelid, Johan, McHugh, Neil J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7227250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-020-02210-2
_version_ 1783534465059913728
author Tansley, Sarah L.
Snowball, Julia
Pauling, John D.
Lissina, Anya
Kuwana, Masataka
Rider, Lisa G.
Rönnelid, Johan
McHugh, Neil J.
author_facet Tansley, Sarah L.
Snowball, Julia
Pauling, John D.
Lissina, Anya
Kuwana, Masataka
Rider, Lisa G.
Rönnelid, Johan
McHugh, Neil J.
author_sort Tansley, Sarah L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A myositis-specific autoantibody can now be identified in the majority of patients with myositis. They identify homogeneous patient subgroups and are key tools in developing a personalized approach to disease management. There is substantial clinical interest in exploiting myositis autoantibodies as biomarkers, and consequently, a large number of commercial assays have been developed for their detection. These assays are already in widespread clinical use. In order to better understand perceived concerns from the international myositis community in relation to the reliability of these assays and how they are being used, we conducted a survey of international myositis experts, all of whom were members of the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies group. RESULTS: We collected data on the types of assay used, manufacturers, and the nature of the report provided by different laboratories and received 111 complete responses. Respondents also provided information on how they used the different assays, their confidence in the results, and how this influenced their clinical practice. Enzyme immunoassay/ELISA was the most popular assay method used worldwide followed by line blot. Line blot was the most popular method used in Europe. Despite concerns from over 80% of respondents regarding false-positive and false-negative results with the assay used by their laboratory, over 80% reported that the identification of a myositis autoantibody influenced their diagnostic confidence, the information they provided to a patient, and their recommended treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of ongoing concerns from the majority of users regarding the reliability of the results, myositis-specific autoantibody testing, using commercial immunoassays, is being used globally to inform clinical decision-making. These findings highlight the need for urgent guidance on the use of myositis autoantibody testing and on the interpretation of results. Knowledge of the reliability of currently available assays is essential given the importance already placed on myositis-specific autoantibodies as clinical decision-making tools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7227250
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72272502020-05-27 The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis Tansley, Sarah L. Snowball, Julia Pauling, John D. Lissina, Anya Kuwana, Masataka Rider, Lisa G. Rönnelid, Johan McHugh, Neil J. Arthritis Res Ther Commentary BACKGROUND: A myositis-specific autoantibody can now be identified in the majority of patients with myositis. They identify homogeneous patient subgroups and are key tools in developing a personalized approach to disease management. There is substantial clinical interest in exploiting myositis autoantibodies as biomarkers, and consequently, a large number of commercial assays have been developed for their detection. These assays are already in widespread clinical use. In order to better understand perceived concerns from the international myositis community in relation to the reliability of these assays and how they are being used, we conducted a survey of international myositis experts, all of whom were members of the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies group. RESULTS: We collected data on the types of assay used, manufacturers, and the nature of the report provided by different laboratories and received 111 complete responses. Respondents also provided information on how they used the different assays, their confidence in the results, and how this influenced their clinical practice. Enzyme immunoassay/ELISA was the most popular assay method used worldwide followed by line blot. Line blot was the most popular method used in Europe. Despite concerns from over 80% of respondents regarding false-positive and false-negative results with the assay used by their laboratory, over 80% reported that the identification of a myositis autoantibody influenced their diagnostic confidence, the information they provided to a patient, and their recommended treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of ongoing concerns from the majority of users regarding the reliability of the results, myositis-specific autoantibody testing, using commercial immunoassays, is being used globally to inform clinical decision-making. These findings highlight the need for urgent guidance on the use of myositis autoantibody testing and on the interpretation of results. Knowledge of the reliability of currently available assays is essential given the importance already placed on myositis-specific autoantibodies as clinical decision-making tools. BioMed Central 2020-05-15 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7227250/ /pubmed/32414409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-020-02210-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Commentary
Tansley, Sarah L.
Snowball, Julia
Pauling, John D.
Lissina, Anya
Kuwana, Masataka
Rider, Lisa G.
Rönnelid, Johan
McHugh, Neil J.
The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title_full The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title_fullStr The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title_full_unstemmed The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title_short The promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
title_sort promise, perceptions, and pitfalls of immunoassays for autoantibody testing in myositis
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7227250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-020-02210-2
work_keys_str_mv AT tansleysarahl thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT snowballjulia thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT paulingjohnd thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT lissinaanya thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT kuwanamasataka thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT riderlisag thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT ronnelidjohan thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT mchughneilj thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT thepromiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT tansleysarahl promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT snowballjulia promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT paulingjohnd promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT lissinaanya promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT kuwanamasataka promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT riderlisag promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT ronnelidjohan promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT mchughneilj promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis
AT promiseperceptionsandpitfallsofimmunoassaysforautoantibodytestinginmyositis