Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Interlaboratory variability in laboratory testing and reporting of myositis autoantibodies

Georgina R. Harvey, Idil Ashur, Xavier Bossuyt, Martin Bluethner, Anna Brusch, Chris Bundell, Hector Chinoy, Claire Coeshott, May Y. Choi, Charmaine Donald, Juliet Dunphy, Marvin J. Fritzler, Adrian Heaps, Marie Hudson, Masataka Kuwana, Océane Landon-Cardinal, Hui Lu, Fionnuala McMorrow, Marie Mayrhofer, Alain MeyerBirthe Michiels, Benoit Nespola, Susan O'Loughlin, Ivana Putova, Ross Sadler, Maria Teresa Sanz-Martinez, Paul Sciore, Albert Selva-O’Callaghan, Helena Storfors, Ernesto Trallero-Araguás, Yves Troyanov, Jade Tyson, Jiří Vencovský, Laura Vinas-Giménez, Akira Yoshida, Johan Rönnelid, Neil J. McHugh, Sarah Tansley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies (MSA/MAA) are important biomarkers used in the diagnosis and assessment of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. To date, limited guidance exists on how testing should be undertaken or which MSA/MAA to include in a clinically justifiable ‘myositis panel’. We aimed to investigate interlaboratory variability in 'myositis autoantibody testing' in terms of panel components, comparability of test results and approaches to reporting with a view to informing future guidelines.

Methods: Twenty-four quality-control sera containing MSA/MAA were shared with 15 participating laboratories located in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan. Laboratories evaluated the samples for MSA/MAA using their usual protocols. Raw data, alongside reported test results, were collated.

Results: Participating laboratories made use of a variety of commercial and in-house assays. Most used at least one commercial multiplex assay and each centre tested for between 14 and 33 autoantibody specificities. Near 100% concordance in the reported result was seen for almost half the samples analysed. As expected, negative results were reported where the previously identified autoantibody was not tested for, but also frequently with putative anti-OJ, anti-EJ and anti-TIF1γ samples. Of concern, the results obtained for anti-TIF1γ sera varied between laboratories using the same commercial assay.

Discussion: We have shown there is considerable variation in how myositis antibody testing is undertaken and the results obtained for key autoantibody specificities, which may impact on clinical decision-making. Dialogue between manufacturers, diagnostic laboratories and clinicians remains crucial and steps towards harmonisation between laboratories is urgently needed.
Original languageEnglish
Article number103548
JournalJournal of Autoimmunity
Volume160
Early online date20 Mar 2026
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 20 Mar 2026

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Funding

This project was funded by The Myositis Association. HC is supported through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

FundersFunder number
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Manchester Biomedical Research CentreNIHR203308

    Keywords

    • Autoantibody
    • Diagnostic
    • Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies
    • Immunoassay
    • Interlaboratory variability
    • Myositis
    • Testing

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Immunology and Allergy
    • Immunology

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Interlaboratory variability in laboratory testing and reporting of myositis autoantibodies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this