Lisa K Peterson1,2, Anne E Tebo1,2, Mark H Wener3, Susan S Copple4, Marvin J Fritzler5. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Abstract
Background: The indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cell substrates is the preferred method by some for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as it demonstrates a number of characteristic staining patterns that reflect the cellular components bound as well as semi-quantitative results. Lack of harmonized nomenclature for HEp-2 IFA patterns, subjectivity in interpretation and variability in the number of patterns reported by different laboratories pose significant harmonization challenges. The main objectives of this study were to assess current practice in laboratory assessment of HEp-2 IFA, identify gaps and define strategies to improve reading, interpretation and reporting. Methods: We developed and administered a 24-item survey based on four domains: educational and professional background of participants, current practice of HEp-2 IFA testing and training, gap assessment and the perceived value of International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody Patterns (ICAP) and other factors in HEp-2 IFA assessment. The Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (AMLI) and American Society for Clinical Pathology administered the survey from April 1 to June 30, 2018, to members involved in ANA testing. This report summarizes the survey results and discussion from a dry workshop held during the 2019 AMLI annual meeting. Results: One hundred and seventy-nine (n = 179) responses were obtained where a significant number were clinical laboratory scientists (46%), laboratory directors (24%), supervisors (13%) or others (17%). A majority of respondents agreed on the need to standardize nomenclature and reporting of HEp-2 IFA results. About 55% were aware of the ICAP initiative; however, among those aware, a significant majority thought its guidance on HEp-2 IFA nomenclature and reporting is of value to clinical laboratories. To improve ICAP awareness and further enhance HEp-2 IFA assessment, increased collaboration between ICAP and the clinical laboratory community was suggested with emphasis on education and availability of reference materials. Conclusions: Based on these suggestions, future efforts to optimize HEp-2 IFA reading, interpretation and reporting would benefit from more hands-on training of laboratory personnel as well as continuous collaboration between professional organizations, in vitro diagnostic manufacturers and clinical laboratories.
Background: The indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cell substrates is the preferred method by some for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as it demonstrates a number of characteristic staining patterns that reflect the cellular components bound as well as semi-quantitative results. Lack of harmonized nomenclature for HEp-2 IFA patterns, subjectivity in interpretation and variability in the number of patterns reported by different laboratories pose significant harmonization challenges. The main objectives of this study were to assess current practice in laboratory assessment of HEp-2 IFA, identify gaps and define strategies to improve reading, interpretation and reporting. Methods: We developed and administered a 24-item survey based on four domains: educational and professional background of participants, current practice of HEp-2 IFA testing and training, gap assessment and the perceived value of International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody Patterns (ICAP) and other factors in HEp-2 IFA assessment. The Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (AMLI) and American Society for Clinical Pathology administered the survey from April 1 to June 30, 2018, to members involved in ANA testing. This report summarizes the survey results and discussion from a dry workshop held during the 2019 AMLI annual meeting. Results: One hundred and seventy-nine (n = 179) responses were obtained where a significant number were clinical laboratory scientists (46%), laboratory directors (24%), supervisors (13%) or others (17%). A majority of respondents agreed on the need to standardize nomenclature and reporting of HEp-2 IFA results. About 55% were aware of the ICAP initiative; however, among those aware, a significant majority thought its guidance on HEp-2 IFA nomenclature and reporting is of value to clinical laboratories. To improve ICAP awareness and further enhance HEp-2 IFA assessment, increased collaboration between ICAP and the clinical laboratory community was suggested with emphasis on education and availability of reference materials. Conclusions: Based on these suggestions, future efforts to optimize HEp-2 IFA reading, interpretation and reporting would benefit from more hands-on training of laboratory personnel as well as continuous collaboration between professional organizations, in vitro diagnostic manufacturers and clinical laboratories.
Authors: Guillermo Muñoz-Sánchez; Albert Pérez-Isidro; Iñaki Ortiz de Landazuri; Antonio López-Gómez; Luz Yadira Bravo-Gallego; Milagros Garcia-Ormaechea; Maria Rosa Julià; Odette Viñas; Estíbaliz Ruiz-Ortiz Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-12