共 42 条
Current state of technologies and recognition of anti-SSA/Ro antibodies in China: A multi-center study
被引:3
作者:
Chen, Yu-Lan
[1
,2
]
Hu, Chao-Jun
[3
,4
]
Peng, Lin-Yi
[3
,4
]
Wang, Chu-Han
[3
,4
]
Zhao, Yan
[3
,4
]
Zhang, Wen
[3
,4
]
Liu, Dong-Zhou
[1
,2
]
机构:
[1] Jinan Univ, Clin Med Coll 2, Shenzhen Peoples Hosp, Dept Rheumatol & Immunol, Jinan, Peoples R China
[2] Southern Univ Sci & Technol, Affiliated Hosp 1, 1017 Dongmen North Rd, Shenzhen 518021, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Acad Med Sci & Peking Union Med Coll, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Key Lab Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Dept Rheumatol,Minist Educ, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Natl Clin Res Ctr Dermatol & Immunol Dis NCRC DID, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金:
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词:
anti-Ro52;
antibodies;
anti-Ro60;
anti-SSA;
Ro antibodies;
detection assay;
reporting system;
Sjogren's syndrome;
SJOGRENS-SYNDROME;
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA;
ANTI-RO52;
AUTOANTIBODIES;
CLINICAL ASSOCIATIONS;
DIAGNOSTIC UTILITY;
AMERICAN-COLLEGE;
DATA-DRIVEN;
RO52;
CONSENSUS;
SEVERITY;
D O I:
10.1002/jcla.24045
中图分类号:
R446 [实验室诊断];
R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号:
1001 ;
摘要:
Background Previous studies have demonstrated that Ro60 and Ro52 have different clinical implications, and anti-Ro52 antibodies are an independent serum marker of systemic autoimmune diseases, including Sjogren's syndrome. Many different assays have been adopted to detect anti-Sjogren's syndrome antigen A (SSA)/Ro antibodies, while to date no specific approach has been recommended as optimal for anti-SSA/Ro antibody testing. Herein, we performed a multi-center study to explore the current clinical utility of different strategies for anti-SSA/Ro antibody testing in China. Methods Twenty-one tertiary care centers were included in this questionnaire-based study. The self-administered questionnaire mainly includes testing methods for anti-SSA/Ro antibodies, reporting system of results, and interpretation of results by clinicians. Results Six different methods were applied to detect anti-SSA/Ro antibodies in the 21 centers. Line immunoassay (eight different commercial kits) was the most frequently adopted method (21/21, 100%), with different cutoff values and strategies for intensity stratification. There were two reporting systems: One was reported as "anti-SSA antibodies" and "anti-Ro52 antibodies" (12/21, 57%), while the other was "anti-SSA/Ro60 antibodies" and "anti-SSA/Ro52 antibodies" (9/21, 43%). Notably, six centers (29%) considered either positive anti-Ro60 or anti-Ro52 antibodies as positive anti-SSA antibodies, all of which adopted the latter reporting system. Conclusion Significant variabilities existed among anti-SSA/Ro assays. Nearly 30% of centers misinterpreted the definition of positive anti-SSA antibodies, which may be attributed to the confusing reporting systems of line immunoassay. Therefore, we advocate standardization of the nomenclature of anti-SSA/Ro antibodies, changing the "anti-SSA/Ro52" label in favor of the "anti-Ro52" antibodies for a clear designation.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文