Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Antinuclear antibody testing: discordance between commercial laboratories

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Antinuclear antibody (ANA) test results frequently affect the course of patients’ evaluations, diagnosis, and treatment, but different laboratory centers may yield conflicting results. This study investigated the degree of agreement between laboratory results in a group of subjects who had ANA testing performed at two commercial laboratories. This was a chart review study, in which all ANA tests ordered by the authors from one commercial laboratory over a 4-year period were queried. Corresponding patient charts were reviewed, and if ANA testing had also been performed at the second commercial laboratory, subjects were entered into the study. The primary measurement was agreement between paired ANA results, and we performed sensitivity analysis using varying criteria defining agreement (criteria A to criteria D [strictest to most lenient definition of agreement]). Other data captured included relevant data obtained through the course of evaluation (e.g., presenting complaints, exam findings, other laboratory data) and final diagnoses. Of 101 paired ANA tests, there was 18 % agreement according to the strictest criteria and 42 % according to the most lenient. Of the seven subjects with ANA-associated rheumatic disease, none of the paired tests were in agreement according to criteria A (two agreed according to criteria D). Our findings demonstrate poor agreement between paired ANA tests performed at two commercial laboratories. The low level of agreement may have far-reaching clinical implications. Specifically, this finding calls into question the reliability of ANA testing as it is currently performed and suggests that results may in part depend upon the laboratory center to which patients are referred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abeles AM, Abeles M (2013) The clinical utility of a positive anti-nuclear antibody test. Am J Med 126:342–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Slater CA, Davis RB, Shmerling RH (1996) Antinuclear antibody testing. A study of clinical utility. Arch Intern Med 156:1421–1425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGhee JL, Kickingbird LM, Jarvis JN (2004) Clinical utility of antinuclear antibody tests in children. BMC Pediatr 4:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Malleson PN, Sailer M, Mackinnon MJ (1997) Usefulness of antinuclear antibody testing to screen for rheumatic diseases. Arch Dis Child 77:299–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Rheumatology Position Statement: Methodology of Testing for Antinuclear Antibodies. (2009). Available at: http://www.rheumatology.org/practice /clinical/position/ana_position_stmt.pdf.

  6. Gniewek RA, Stites DP, McHugh TM, Hilton JF, Nakagawa M (1997) Comparison of antinuclear antibody testing methods: immunofluorescence assay versus enzyme immunoassay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 4:185–188

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Jaskowski TD, Schroder C, Martins TB, Mouritsen CL, Litwin CM, Hill HR (1996) Screening for anti nuclear antibodies by enzyme immunoassay. Am J Clin Pathol 105:468–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernandez SA, Lobo AZ, Oliveira ZN, Fukumori LM, Prigo AM, Rivitti EA (2003) Prevalence of antinuclear autoantibodies in the serum of normal blood donors. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 58:315–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verstegen G, Duyck MC, Meeus P, Ravelingien I, De Vlam K (2009) Detection and identification of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large community hospital. Acta Clin Belg 64:317–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maguire GA, Ginawi A, Lee J, Lim AY, Wood G, Houghton S et al (2009) Clinical utility of ANA measured by ELISA compared with ANA measured by immunofluorescence. Rheumatology (Oxford) 48:1013–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell AS, Johnston T (2003) Relative value of commercial kits for ANA testing. Clin Exp Rheumatol 21:477–480

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Emlen W, O’Neill L (1997) Clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 40:1612–1618

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Narain S, Richards HB, Satoh M, Sarmiento M et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy for lupus and other systemic autoimmune diseases in the community setting. Arch Intern Med 164:2435–2441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aryeh M. Abeles.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None

Support/source of funding

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abeles, A.M., Gomez-Ramirez, M., Abeles, M. et al. Antinuclear antibody testing: discordance between commercial laboratories. Clin Rheumatol 35, 1713–1718 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3241-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3241-x

Keywords

Navigation