Comparison of an enzyme immunoassay to an indirect fluorescent immunoassay for the detection of antinuclear antibodies

Reisner, B.S.; DiBlasi, J.; Goel, N.

American Journal of Clinical Pathology 111(4): 503-506

1999


ISSN/ISBN: 0002-9173
PMID: 10191770
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/111.4.503
Accession: 010356742

Download citation:  
Text
  |  
BibTeX
  |  
RIS

Article/Abstract emailed within 0-6 h
Payments are secure & encrypted
Powered by Stripe
Powered by PayPal

Abstract
The standard method for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) is by immunofluorescence assay (IFA), a method that is labor intensive and subjective. In an attempt to overcome these limitations, several commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have been developed. We report the results of our evaluation of the ANA Microplate EIA (Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, Chaska, MN). For the evaluation, 808 serum samples were tested by EIA and IFA; 52 specimens were positive by both assays, 561 were negative by both assays, 91 were positive by EIA only, and 3 were positive by IFA only. Borderline results (not positive or negative) were obtained for 101 specimens, which were excluded when calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of this assay, which were 94.6%, 86.0%, 36.4%, and 99.5%, respectively. Because of its high negative predictive value, this assay can be used reliably to detect ANA-negative samples; however, the low positive predictive value indicates that EIA-positive specimens should be retested by an IFA to determine the final result.