OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of a line blot assay for the identification of autoantibodies in sera of patients affected by myositis, compared with immunoprecipitation (IP) as gold standard. METHODS: 66 sera of patients with myositis (23 polymyositis, 8 anti-synthetase syndromes, 29 dermatomyositis and 6 overlap syndromes) were tested by commercial LB (Euroimmun, Lubeck, Germany); 57 sera were analyzed also by IP of K562 cell extract radiolabeled with (35)S-methionine. Inter-rater agreement was calculated with Cohen's k coefficient. RESULTS: Myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) were detected in 36/57 sera (63%) by IP and in 39/66 sera (59%) by LB. The most frequent MSA found by LB were anti-Jo1 and anti-Mi2 found in 15% (10/66) of sera, followed by anti-NXP2 and anti-SRP detected in 106% (7/66) of sera. Anti-TIF1gamma and anti-MDA5 were found in 6 (9%) and 5 sera (7.6%), respectively. A good agreement between methods was found only for anti-TIF1γ, anti-MDA5 and anti-NXP-2 antibodies, while a moderate agreement was estimated for anti-Mi2 and anti-EJ. By contrast, a high discordance rate for the detection of anti-Jo1 antibodies was evident (k: 0.3). Multiple positivity for MSA were found in 11/66 (17%) by LB and 0/57 by IP (p: 0001). Comparing the clinical features of these 11 sera, we found total discrepancies between assays in 3 sera (27.3%), a relative discrepancy due to the occurrence of one discordant autoantibody (not confirmed by IP) in 5 cases (45.5%) and a total discrepancy between LB and IP results, but with a relative concordance with clinical features were found in other 3 sera (27.3%). The semiquantitative results do not support the interpretation of the data. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LB assay allowed the detection of new MSA, such as anti-MDA5, anti-MJ and anti-TIF1gamma antibodies, previously not found with routine methods. However, the high prevalence of multiple positivities and the high discondant rate of anti-Jo1 antibodies could create some misinterpretation of the results from the clinical point of view. These data should be confirmed by enlarging the number of myositis cases.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of a line blot assay for the identification of autoantibodies in sera of patients affected by myositis, compared with immunoprecipitation (IP) as gold standard. METHODS: 66 sera of patients with myositis (23 polymyositis, 8 anti-synthetase syndromes, 29 dermatomyositis and 6 overlap syndromes) were tested by commercial LB (Euroimmun, Lubeck, Germany); 57 sera were analyzed also by IP of K562 cell extract radiolabeled with (35)S-methionine. Inter-rater agreement was calculated with Cohen's k coefficient. RESULTS:Myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) were detected in 36/57 sera (63%) by IP and in 39/66 sera (59%) by LB. The most frequent MSA found by LB were anti-Jo1 and anti-Mi2 found in 15% (10/66) of sera, followed by anti-NXP2 and anti-SRP detected in 106% (7/66) of sera. Anti-TIF1gamma and anti-MDA5 were found in 6 (9%) and 5 sera (7.6%), respectively. A good agreement between methods was found only for anti-TIF1γ, anti-MDA5 and anti-NXP-2 antibodies, while a moderate agreement was estimated for anti-Mi2 and anti-EJ. By contrast, a high discordance rate for the detection of anti-Jo1 antibodies was evident (k: 0.3). Multiple positivity for MSA were found in 11/66 (17%) by LB and 0/57 by IP (p: 0001). Comparing the clinical features of these 11 sera, we found total discrepancies between assays in 3 sera (27.3%), a relative discrepancy due to the occurrence of one discordant autoantibody (not confirmed by IP) in 5 cases (45.5%) and a total discrepancy between LB and IP results, but with a relative concordance with clinical features were found in other 3 sera (27.3%). The semiquantitative results do not support the interpretation of the data. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LB assay allowed the detection of new MSA, such as anti-MDA5, anti-MJ and anti-TIF1gamma antibodies, previously not found with routine methods. However, the high prevalence of multiple positivities and the high discondant rate of anti-Jo1 antibodies could create some misinterpretation of the results from the clinical point of view. These data should be confirmed by enlarging the number of myositis cases.
Authors: Christopher A Mecoli; Jemima Albayda; Eleni Tiniakou; Julie J Paik; Umar Zahid; Sonye K Danoff; Livia Casciola-Rosen; Maria Casal-Dominguez; Katherine Pak; Iago Pinal-Fernandez; Andrew L Mammen; Lisa Christopher-Stine Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 10.995