Skip to main content
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology logoLink to Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology
. 1997 Mar;4(2):185–188. doi: 10.1128/cdli.4.2.185-188.1997

Comparison of antinuclear antibody testing methods: immunofluorescence assay versus enzyme immunoassay.

R A Gniewek 1, D P Stites 1, T M McHugh 1, J F Hilton 1, M Nakagawa 1
PMCID: PMC170499  PMID: 9067653

Abstract

Performances of anti-nuclear antibody testing by immunofluorescence assay (ANA-IFA) and enzyme immunoassay (ANA-EIA) were compared in relation to patient diagnosis. A total of 467 patient serum samples were tested by ANA-IFA (Kallestad; Sanofi) and ANA-EIA (RADIAS; Bio-Rad), and their age, sex, diagnosis, disease status, and medications were obtained through chart review. Reference ranges were established by testing 98 healthy blood donor samples. Eighty-six samples came from patients with diffuse connective tissue diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, discoid lupus erythematosus, or drug-induced lupus (n = 71); systemic sclerosis, CREST syndrome (calcinosis, Raynaud's phenomenon, esophageal motility abnormalities, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasia), or Raynaud's syndrome (n = 8); Sjögren's syndrome (n = 5); mixed connective tissue disease (n = 5); and polymyositis or dermatomyositis (n = 3). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for ANA-IFA were 87.2, 48.0, 29.1, and 93.9%, respectively, for the reference range of < 1:160. For ANA-EIA, they were 90.7, 60.2, 35.8, and 96.4%, respectively, for the reference range of < 0.9. ANA-EIA offers equivalent sensitivity and higher specificity compared to ANA-IFA.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (82.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Check W. A. New autoimmune tests seek acceptance. CAP Today. 1995 Apr;9(4):1, 28, 32-4 passim. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fritzler M. J., Kinsella T. D. The CREST syndrome: a distinct serologic entity with anticentromere antibodies. Am J Med. 1980 Oct;69(4):520–526. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(80)90462-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Homburger H. A. Cascade testing for autoantibodies in connective tissue diseases. Mayo Clin Proc. 1995 Feb;70(2):183–184. doi: 10.4065/70.2.183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. James K., Meek G. Evaluation of commercial enzyme immunoassays compared to immunofluorescence and double diffusion for autoantibodies associated with autoimmune diseases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1992 Apr;97(4):559–565. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/97.4.559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jaskowski T. D., Schroder C., Martins T. B., Mouritsen C. L., Litwin C. M., Hill H. R. Screening for antinuclear antibodies by enzyme immunoassay. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Apr;105(4):468–473. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/105.4.468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Moncé N. M., Jr, Bogusky R. T., Cappel N. N. An enzyme immunoassay screening test for the detection of total antinuclear antibodies. J Clin Lab Anal. 1991;5(6):439–442. doi: 10.1002/jcla.1860050612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Moroi Y., Peebles C., Fritzler M. J., Steigerwald J., Tan E. M. Autoantibody to centromere (kinetochore) in scleroderma sera. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Mar;77(3):1627–1631. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.3.1627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Swaak A. J., Huysen V., Smeenk R. J. Antinuclear antibodies in routine analysis: the relevance of putative clinical associations. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993 Feb;52(2):110–114. doi: 10.1136/ard.52.2.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. White R. H., Robbins D. L. Clinical significance and interpretation of antinuclear antibodies. West J Med. 1987 Aug;147(2):210–213. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Xavier R. M., Yamauchi Y., Nakamura M., Tanigawa Y., Ishikura H., Tsunematsu T., Kobayashi S. Antinuclear antibodies in healthy aging people: a prospective study. Mech Ageing Dev. 1995 Mar 1;78(2):145–154. doi: 10.1016/0047-6374(94)01532-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Zweig M. H., Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993 Apr;39(4):561–577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES