Abstract
Background: PR3-ANCA, the serological marker of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), is usually detected by immunometric assays, with purified PR3 directly coated onto the solid-phase. Novel methods for PR3-ANCA detection have been developed to improve the performance of traditional PR3-ANCA specific assays, but little is known about their diagnostic performance in real-life clinical settings. This study aimed to compare the performance of nine different commercial PR3-ANCA specific assays, including traditional and newer ones, for the diagnosis of GPA.
Methods: The evaluated assays for PR3-ANCA detection were representative of the first, second, and third generation tests (direct, capture and anchor assays, respectively). A third-generation assay employing both human and recombinant PR3 was also evaluated. The study population consisted of 55 GPA patients, 175 disease controls (representing most diseases in differential diagnosis with primary small-vessel vasculitis) including 52 with microscopic polyangiitis, and 20 healthy subjects. We performed the primary evaluation of test sensitivity using cut-off points which provided adequate and identical specificity for each test.
Results: Although specificity and area under the ROC curve did not differ significantly between the different assays, substantial differences in sensitivity at 98%-specificity were found in some instances (p<0.001). Compared to first generation direct PR3-ANCA specific assays, some of the second and third generation tests increased the positive predictive value (PPV) for GPA diagnosis.
Conclusions: Some of the newer PR3-ANCA specific assays have better PPV than traditional ones.
The authors wish to thank Carlo De Maria and Salvatore Di Marco, with all their staff members, for their continuous technical support and assistance, and the clinical engineering services for the professional help.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
References
1. Savige J, Davies D, Falk RJ, Jennette JC, Wiik A. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and associated diseases: a review of the clinical and laboratory features. Kidney Int 2000;57:846–62.10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.057003846.xSearch in Google Scholar
2. Radice A, Sinico RA. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Autoimmunity 2005;38:93–103.10.1080/08916930400022673Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Sinico RA, Di Toma L, Maggiore U, Bottero P, Radice A, Tosoni C, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in churg-strauss syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2926–35.10.1002/art.21250Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Sinico RA, Radice A, Pozzi C, Ferrario F, Arrigo G. Diagnostic significance and antigen specificity of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in renal disease. A prospective multicentric study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1994;9:505–10.10.1093/ndt/9.5.505Search in Google Scholar
5. Boomsma MM, Stegeman CA, van der Leij MJ, Oost W, Hermans J, Kallenberg CG, et al. Prediction of relapses in Wegener’s granulomatosis by measurement of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody levels. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:2025–33.10.1002/1529-0131(200009)43:9<2025::AID-ANR13>3.0.CO;2-OSearch in Google Scholar
6. Kerr GS, Fleisher TA, Hallahan CW, Leavitt RY, Fauci AS, Hoffman GS. Limited prognostic value of changes in antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody titer in patients with Wegener’s granulomatosis. Arthritis Rheum 1993;36:365–71.10.1002/art.1780360312Search in Google Scholar
7. Girard T, Mahr A, Noel LH, Cordier JF, Lesavre P, Andrè MH. Are antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies a marker predictive of relapse in Wegener’s granulomatosis? A prospective study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001;40:147–51.10.1093/rheumatology/40.2.147Search in Google Scholar
8. Han WK, Choi HK, Roth RM, McCluskey RT, Niles JL. Serial ANCA titers: useful tool for prevention of relapses in ANCA-associated vasculitis. Kidney Int 2003;63:1079–85.10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00821.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Savige J, Gillis D, Benson E, Davies D, Esnault V, Falk R, et al. International consensus statement on testing and reporting of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA). Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:507–13.10.1093/ajcp/111.4.507Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Savige J, Dimech W, Fritzler M, Goeken J, Hagen EC, Jennette JC, et al. For the international group for consensus statement on testing and reporting of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA). Addendum to the international consensus statement on testing and reporting of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;120:312–8.10.1309/WAEPADW0K4LPUHFNSearch in Google Scholar
11. Wiik A. Delineation of a standard procedure for indirect immunofluorescence detection of ANCA. APMIS 1989;6:12–3.Search in Google Scholar
12. Radice A, Vecchi M, Bianchi MB, Sinico RA. Contribution of immunofluorescence to the identification and characterization of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies. The role of different fixatives. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000;18:707–12.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Goldschmeding R, van der Schoot CE, ten Bokkel Huinink D, Hack CE, van den Ende ME, Kallenberg CG. Wegener’s granulomatosis autoantibodies identify a novel diisopropylfluorophosphate-binding protein in the lysosomes of normal human neutrophils. J Clin Invest 1989;84:1577–87.10.1172/JCI114335Search in Google Scholar
14. Radice A, Sabadini E, Sinico RA. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies with specificity for proteinase 3. In: Shoenfeld Y, Gershwin E, Meroni PL, editors. Autoantibodies. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
15. Merkel PA, Polisson RP, Chang YC, Skates SJ, Niles JL. Prevalence of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a large inception cohort of patients with connective tissue disease. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:866–73.10.7326/0003-4819-126-11-199706010-00003Search in Google Scholar
16. Jennette JC, Wilkman AS, Falk RJ. Diagnostic predictive value of ANCA serology. Kidney Int 1998;53:796–8.10.1038/ki.1998.36Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Brenner H, Gefeller O. Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Stat Med 1997;16:981–91.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<981::AID-SIM510>3.0.CO;2-NSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Wang G, Csernok E, de Groot K, Gross WL. Comparison of eight commercial kits for quantitation of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). J Immunol Methods 1997;208:203–11.10.1016/S0022-1759(97)00154-3Search in Google Scholar
19. Csernok E, Ahlquist D, Ullrich S, Gross WL. A critical evaluation of commercial immunoassays for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies directed against proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase in Wegener’s granulomatosis and microscopic polyangiitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:1313–7.10.1093/rheumatology/41.11.1313Search in Google Scholar
20. Holle JU, Hellmich B, Backes M, Gross WL, Csernok E. Variations in performance characteristics of commercial enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies: what is the optimal cut off? Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1773–9.10.1136/ard.2005.035279Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Sommarin Y, Rasmussen N, Wieslander J. Characterization of monoclonal antibodies to proteinase 3 and application in the study of epitopes for classical anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibodies. Exp Nephrol 1995;3:249–56.Search in Google Scholar
22. Erdbrugger U, Hellmark T, Bunch DO, Alcorta DA, Jennette JC, Falk RJ, et al. Mapping of myeloperoxidase epitopes recognized by MPO-ANCA using human-mouse MPO chimers. Kidney Int 2006;69:1799–805.10.1038/sj.ki.5000354Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Westman KW, Selga D, Bygren P, Segelmark M, Baslund B, Wiik A, et al. Clinical evaluation of a capture ELISA for detection of proteinase 3 antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody. Kidney Int 1998;53:1230–6.10.1046/j.1523-1755.1998.00873.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Csernok E, Holle J, Hellmich B, Willem J, Tervaert C, Kallenberg CG, et al. Evaluation of capture ELISA for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies directed against proteinase 3 in Wegener’s granulomatosis: first results from a multicentre study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:174–80.10.1093/rheumatology/keh028Search in Google Scholar
25. Hellmich B, Csernok E, Fredenhagen G, Gross WL. A novel high sensitivity ELISA for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasm antibodies against proteinase-3. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25:1–5.Search in Google Scholar
26. Radice A, Bianchi L, Palumbo A, Sinico RA. Clinical evaluation of the new AeskulisaPR3sensitiv assay for the diagnosis of Wegener granulomatosis. APMIS 2009;117(s127):180.Search in Google Scholar
27. Damoiseaux J, Dähnrich C, Rosemann A, Probst C, Komorowski L, Stegeman CA, et al. A novel enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using a mixture of human native and recombinant proteinase-3 significantly improves the diagnostic potential for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:228–33.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000262394000013&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1136/ard.2007.086579Search in Google Scholar
28. Radice A, Bianchi L, Palumbo A, Sinico RA. A novel PR3-ANCA ELISA with a mixture of human purified and recombinant PR3 as solid phase antigen. In: Conrad K, Chan EK, Fritzler MJ, Humbel RL, von Landenberg P, Shoenfeld Y, editors. From pathogenesis to therapy of autoimmune diseases. PABST Science Publishers 2009;6:383–5.Search in Google Scholar
29. Fries JF, Hunder GG, Bloch DA, Michel BA, Arend WP, Calabrese LH, et al. The American College of Rheumatology, criteria for the classification of vasculitis. Summary. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1135–6.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000283059100003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Jennette JC, Falk RJ, Andrassy K, Bacon PA, Churg J, Gross WL, et al. Nomenclature of systemic vasculitides. Proposal of an international consensus conference. Arthritis Rheum 1994;37:187–92.10.1002/art.1780370206http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000312938100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Watts R, Lane S, Hanslik T, Hauser T, Hellmich B, Koldingsnes W, et al. Development and validation of a consensus methodology for the classification of the ANCA-associated vasculitides and polyarteritis nodosa for epidemiological studies. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:222–7.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000243639500015&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1136/ard.2006.054593Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32. Ruperto N. For the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO). Classification criteria and diagnostic tests for vasculitides. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1503–5.10.3899/jrheum.120640Search in Google Scholar
33. Sinico RA, Pozzi C, Radice A, Tincani A, Li Vecchi M, Rota S, et al. Clinical significance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies with specificity for lactoferrin in renal diseases. Am J Kidney Dis 1993;22:253–60.10.1016/S0272-6386(12)70314-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Obuchowski N, McClish D. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 1997;16:1529–42.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970715)16:13<1529::AID-SIM565>3.0.CO;2-HSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Li J, Fine J. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. Stat Med 2004;23:2537–50.10.1002/sim.1836Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Stata Base Reference Manual Release 11, Vol. 3. Stata Press Publication, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA, 2009: 1595–615.Search in Google Scholar
37. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristics curve: a non parametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45.10.2307/2531595Search in Google Scholar
38. Seed PT, Tobias A. Summary statistics for diagnostic tests. Stata J 2004;4:490.Search in Google Scholar
39. Hawass NE. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997;70:360–6.10.1259/bjr.70.832.9166071Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40. Holle JU, Herrmann K, Gross WL, Csernok E. Comparative analysis of different commercial ELISA systems for the detection of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibodies in ANCA-associated vasculitides. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30(Suppl 70):S66–9.Search in Google Scholar
41. Hagen EC, Daha MR, Hermans J, Andrassy K, Csernok E, Gaskin G, et al. Diagnostic value of standardized assays for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in idiopathic systemic vasculitis. EC/BCR Project for ANCA Assay Standardization. Kidney Int 1998;53:743–53.10.1046/j.1523-1755.1998.00807.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
