Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies

Michael Mahler, Zoe Betteridge, Chelsea Bentow, Michaelin Richards, Andrea Seaman, Hector Chinoy, Neil McHugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46-0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.

LanguageEnglish
Article number848
JournalFrontiers in Immunology
Volume10
DOIs
StatusPublished - 30 Apr 2019

Cite this

Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies. / Mahler, Michael; Betteridge, Zoe; Bentow, Chelsea; Richards, Michaelin; Seaman, Andrea; Chinoy, Hector; McHugh, Neil.

In: Frontiers in Immunology, Vol. 10, 848, 30.04.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mahler M, Betteridge Z, Bentow C, Richards M, Seaman A, Chinoy H et al. Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies. Frontiers in Immunology. 2019 Apr 30;10. 848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848
Mahler, Michael ; Betteridge, Zoe ; Bentow, Chelsea ; Richards, Michaelin ; Seaman, Andrea ; Chinoy, Hector ; McHugh, Neil. / Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies. In: Frontiers in Immunology. 2019 ; Vol. 10.
@article{9f50a0c994234d41bd8f497915ea31bf,
title = "Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies",
abstract = "Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46-0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.",
author = "Michael Mahler and Zoe Betteridge and Chelsea Bentow and Michaelin Richards and Andrea Seaman and Hector Chinoy and Neil McHugh",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "Frontiers in Immunology",
issn = "1664-3224",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S.A.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies

AU - Mahler, Michael

AU - Betteridge, Zoe

AU - Bentow, Chelsea

AU - Richards, Michaelin

AU - Seaman, Andrea

AU - Chinoy, Hector

AU - McHugh, Neil

PY - 2019/4/30

Y1 - 2019/4/30

N2 - Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46-0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.

AB - Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46-0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.

U2 - 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848

DO - 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - Frontiers in Immunology

T2 - Frontiers in Immunology

JF - Frontiers in Immunology

SN - 1664-3224

M1 - 848

ER -