Rheumatology International

, Volume 29, Issue 7, pp 849–851 | Cite as

A proposed model for effective collaboration between rheumatologists and clinical pathologists for the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases

  • Nicola Bizzaro
  • Gabriella Morozzi
Letter to the Editor

Tests for detecting autoantibodies are very useful in diagnosing and monitoring autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). However, the continual discovery of new specific autoantibodies and the great advances in laboratory technology have given rise in recent years to the introduction of new tests and new diagnostic methods to the point that the clinician may find himself in difficulty as to which tests should be requested in a given context and how the results obtained should be interpreted.

In fact, if we consider that more than 100 autoantibodies have been described in cases of systemic lupus erythematosus [1] alone, and that some of these may appear in asymptomatic subjects and may precede the appearance of clinical manifestations by years [2, 3], the ability to differentiate among the results of various methods, which often present differing characteristics of sensitivity and specificity, may cause serious difficulties in the interpretation of test results, certainly on the part of...


Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Clinical Pathologist Suspected Diagnosis Sicca Syndrome Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Sherer Y, Gorstein A, Fritzler MJ, Shoenfeld Y (2004) Autoantibody explosion in systemic lupus erythematosus. Semin Arthritis Rheum 34:501–537. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2004.07.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbuckle MR, Mc Clain MT, Rubertone MV, Scofield RH, Dennis GJ, James JA et al (2003) Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 349:1526–1533. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021933 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bizzaro N (2007) Autoantibodies as predictors of disease: the clinical and experimental evidence. Autoimmun Rev 6:325–333. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2007.01.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiik AS, Gordon TP, Kavanaugh AF, Lahita RG, Reeves W, van Venrooij WJ et al (2004) Cutting edge diagnostics in rheumatology: on the role of patients, clinicians, and laboratory scientists in optimizing the use of autoimmune serology. Arthritis Care Res 51:291–298. doi: 10.1002/art.20229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kavanaugh AF, Tomar R, Reveille J, Solomon DH, Homburger HA (2000) Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:71–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kavanaugh A (2001) The utility of immunologic laboratory tests in patients with rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 44:2221–2223. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200110)44:10<2221::AID-ART383>3.0.CO;2-TGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH (2002) and the American College of Rheumatology ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 47:434–444. doi: 10.1002/art.10561 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH (2002) and the American College of Rheumatology ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum 47:546–555. doi: 10.1002/art.10558 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tozzoli R, Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, Villalta D, Bassetti D, Manoni F et al (2002) Guidelines for the laboratory use of autoantibody tests in the diagnosis and monitoring of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Am J Clin Pathol 117:316–324. doi: 10.1309/Y5VF-C3DM-L8XV-U053 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stinton LM, Fritzler MJ (2007) A clinical approach to autoantibody testing in systemic autoimmune rheumatic disorders. Autoimmun Rev 7:77–84. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2007.08.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiik A, Cervera R, Haass M, Kallenberg C, Khamashta M, Meroni PL et al (2006) European attempts to set guidelines for improving diagnostics of autoimmune rheumatic disorders. Lupus 15:391–396. doi: 10.1191/0961203306lu2322oa PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PC et al (1999) Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 282:1458–1465. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solomon DH, Shmerling RH, Schur PH, Lew R, Fiskio J, Bates DW (1999) A computer based intervention to reduce unnecessary serologic testing. J Rheumatol 26:2578–2584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fritzler MJ, Wiik A, Fritzler ML, Barr SG (2003) The use and abuse of commercial kits used to detect autoantibodies. Arthritis Res Ther 5:192–201. doi: 10.1186/ar782 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keren DF, Nakamura RM (1997) Progress and controversies in autoimmune disease testing. Clin Lab Med 17:483–497Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lock RJ (2004) Rational requesting or rationing testing? J Clin Pathol 57:121–122. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2003.11122 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Homburger HA (1995) Cascade testing for autoantibodies in connective tissue diseases. Mayo Clin Proc 70:183–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bizzaro N, Wiik A (2004) Appropriateness in anti-nuclear antibody testing: from clinical request to strategic laboratory practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol 22:349–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiik AS (2003) Appropriateness of autoantibody testing in clinical medicine. Clin Chim Acta 333:177–180. doi: 10.1016/S0009-8981(03)00182-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiik AS (2005) Anti-nuclear autoantibodies: clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring, and planning of treatment strategy in systemic immunoinflammatory diseases. Scand J Rheumatol 34:260–268. doi: 10.1080/03009740500202664 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiik A (2001) Clinical use of serological tests for ANCA: what do the studies say? Rheum Dis Clin North Am 27:799–813. doi: 10.1016/S0889-857X(05)70236-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tonutti E, Visentini D, Bizzaro N (2007) Interpretative comments on autoantibody tests. Autoimmun Rev 6:341–346. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2007.01.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laposata ME, Laposata M, van Cott EM, Buchmer DS, Kashalo MS, Dighe AS (2004) Physician survey of a laboratory medicine interpretative service and evaluation of the influence of interpretations on laboratory test ordering. Arch Pathol Lab Med 128:1424–1427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinclair D, Duncan H (2004) What happens to patients with positive tissue transglutaminase and endomysium antibody results in general practice? J Clin Pathol 57:943–945. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2004.016261 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laposata M (2004) Patient-specific narrative interpretations of complex clinical laboratory evaluations: who is competent to provide them? Clin Chem 50:471–472. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2003.028951 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plebani M (2005) The future of clinical laboratories: more testing or knowledge services? Clin Chem Lab Med 43:893–896. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2005.152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Clinical PathologyOspedale CivileTolmezzoItaly
  2. 2.Rheumatology ClinicUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations