Cargando…
Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is based on the positivity of laboratory criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Test results for aPLs could be contradictory among different detection methods as well as commercial manufacturers. This study aimed to assess and compare th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8283786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34276646 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.648881 |
_version_ | 1783723272991408128 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Chaojun Li, Siting Xie, Zhijuan You, Hanxiao Jiang, Hui Shi, Yu Qi, Wanting Zhao, Jiuliang Wang, Qian Tian, Xinping Li, Mengtao Zhao, Yan Zeng, Xiaofeng |
author_facet | Hu, Chaojun Li, Siting Xie, Zhijuan You, Hanxiao Jiang, Hui Shi, Yu Qi, Wanting Zhao, Jiuliang Wang, Qian Tian, Xinping Li, Mengtao Zhao, Yan Zeng, Xiaofeng |
author_sort | Hu, Chaojun |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is based on the positivity of laboratory criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Test results for aPLs could be contradictory among different detection methods as well as commercial manufacturers. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic and analytic performances of four commercial assays prevalently used in China. METHODS: A total of 313 patients including 100 patients diagnosed with primary APS, 52 with APS secondary to SLE, 71 with SLE, and 90 health controls were recruited. Serum IgG, IgM, and IgA for aCL, and aβ2GPI antibodies were detected with two ELISA and two CLIA systems, and test system with the best diagnostic value was explored of its correlation with key clinical features. RESULTS: CLIA by YHLO Biotech Co. was considered as the system with the best predictive power, where 58.55 and 57.89% of APS patients were positive for aCL or aβ2GPI for at least one antibody (IgG or IgM or IgA). Overall, CLIA showed better performance characteristics than traditional ELISA test systems. CONCLUSION: CLIA was considered as a better platform for aPL detection in APS diagnosis. A combination of other detection platforms could assist in differential diagnosis as well as in identifying high-risk patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8283786 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82837862021-07-17 Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort Hu, Chaojun Li, Siting Xie, Zhijuan You, Hanxiao Jiang, Hui Shi, Yu Qi, Wanting Zhao, Jiuliang Wang, Qian Tian, Xinping Li, Mengtao Zhao, Yan Zeng, Xiaofeng Front Immunol Immunology BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is based on the positivity of laboratory criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Test results for aPLs could be contradictory among different detection methods as well as commercial manufacturers. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic and analytic performances of four commercial assays prevalently used in China. METHODS: A total of 313 patients including 100 patients diagnosed with primary APS, 52 with APS secondary to SLE, 71 with SLE, and 90 health controls were recruited. Serum IgG, IgM, and IgA for aCL, and aβ2GPI antibodies were detected with two ELISA and two CLIA systems, and test system with the best diagnostic value was explored of its correlation with key clinical features. RESULTS: CLIA by YHLO Biotech Co. was considered as the system with the best predictive power, where 58.55 and 57.89% of APS patients were positive for aCL or aβ2GPI for at least one antibody (IgG or IgM or IgA). Overall, CLIA showed better performance characteristics than traditional ELISA test systems. CONCLUSION: CLIA was considered as a better platform for aPL detection in APS diagnosis. A combination of other detection platforms could assist in differential diagnosis as well as in identifying high-risk patients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8283786/ /pubmed/34276646 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.648881 Text en Copyright © 2021 Hu, Li, Xie, You, Jiang, Shi, Qi, Zhao, Wang, Tian, Li, Zhao and Zeng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Immunology Hu, Chaojun Li, Siting Xie, Zhijuan You, Hanxiao Jiang, Hui Shi, Yu Qi, Wanting Zhao, Jiuliang Wang, Qian Tian, Xinping Li, Mengtao Zhao, Yan Zeng, Xiaofeng Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title | Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title_full | Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title_short | Comparison of Different Test Systems for the Detection of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in a Chinese Cohort |
title_sort | comparison of different test systems for the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies in a chinese cohort |
topic | Immunology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8283786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34276646 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.648881 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huchaojun comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT lisiting comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT xiezhijuan comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT youhanxiao comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT jianghui comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT shiyu comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT qiwanting comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT zhaojiuliang comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT wangqian comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT tianxinping comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT limengtao comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT zhaoyan comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort AT zengxiaofeng comparisonofdifferenttestsystemsforthedetectionofantiphospholipidantibodiesinachinesecohort |