Abstract
Background: Screening for anti-nuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence (ANA-IIF) remains mandatory in the serological work-up of connective tissue diseases. Recently, automated approaches were introduced that may improve harmonization. Here, we investigated whether the introduction of automated ANA-IIF and more specifically the use of its quantitative measure, could improve ANA-IIF internal quality control (IQC) management.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed results of two cohorts of routine samples and parallel IQC data collected from January 2010 to February 2013 and from February to mid October 2013. For the first cohort, data were collected using conventional microscopy. The second cohort was analyzed by an automated ANA-IIF microscope (Zenit G sight, A. Menarini). Retrospectively, we evaluated the applicability of the probability index (PI) of control material measurements and patient results for IQC management based on Westgard multirules. This approach was also compared with monthly monitoring of the %ANA-IIF positive samples.
Results: In our historical data set, we showed that monitoring of %ANA positives identified systematic errors that were not detected by monitoring control material results. Data resulting from automated microscopy showed that PI measurements on control material remained stable within the observed period and that Westgard multirules can be used for IQC follow-up. Parallel monitoring of the daily median patient PI and the monthly %ANA positives, showed that the daily median was a sensitive and fast tool for detecting systematic errors.
Conclusions: The introduction of the automated ANA-IIF microscope could enable objective IQC procedures and should be considered an important step forward in ANA-IIF harmonization.
Acknowledgments
The technical assistance of Ms Virgie Baert, Ms Annette Heirwegh, Ms Vicky Mortier and Ms Sylvia Van Haelst is greatly acknowledged.
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. Funding played no role in thestudy design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretationof data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision tosubmit the report for publication.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Funding: Carolien Bonroy is granted by the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders.
References
1. Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH, American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing G. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 2002;47:434–44.10.1002/art.10561Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Pham BN, Albarede S, Guyard A, Burg E, Maisonneuve P. Impact of external quality assessment on antinuclear antibody detection performance. Lupus 2005;14:113–9.10.1191/0961203305lu2069oaSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Van Praet JT, Vander Cruyssen B, Bonroy C, Smith V, Delanghe J, De Keyser F. Validation of a new screening strategy for anti-extractable nuclear antigen antibodies. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009;27:971–6.Search in Google Scholar
4. Op De Beeck K, Vermeersch P, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Marien G, Blockmans D, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and by solid phase assay. Autoimmun Rev 2011;10:801–8.10.1016/j.autrev.2011.06.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Meroni PL, Schur PH. Ana screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1420–2.10.1136/ard.2009.127100Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Clinical laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI). Quality assurance of laboratory tests for autoantibodies to nuclear antigens: (1) indirect fluorescent assay for microscopy and (2) microtiter enzyme immunoassay methods. 2nd ed. CLSI document I/LA2–A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2006.Search in Google Scholar
7. Bonroy C, Verfaillie C, Smith V, Persijn L, De Witte E, De Keyser F, et al. Automated indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody analysis is a standardized alternative for visual microscope interpretation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1771–9.10.1515/cclm-2013-0016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Bossuyt X, Cooreman S, De Baere H, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Blockmans D, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by automated indirect immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chim Acta 2013;415:101–6.10.1016/j.cca.2012.09.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Bizzaro N, Antico A, Platzgummer S, Tonutti E, Bassetti D, Pesente F, et al.; Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Laboratory Medicine, Italy. Automated antinuclear immunofluorescence antibody screening: a comparative study of six computer-aided diagnostic systems. Autoimmun Rev 2013;13:292–8.10.1016/j.autrev.2013.10.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Humbel R. Detection of antiniuclear antibodies by immunofluorescence. In: Venrooij van J, Maini RN, editors. Manual of biological markers of disease. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1993:1–16.Search in Google Scholar
11. Van Houcke SK, Stepman HC, Thienpont LM, Fiers T, Stove V, Couck P, et al. Long-term stability of laboratory tests and practical implications for quality management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1227–31.10.1515/cclm-2012-0820Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Westgard JO, Barry PL, Hunt MR, Groth T. A multi-rule shewhart chart for quality control in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 1981;27:493–501.10.1093/clinchem/27.3.493Search in Google Scholar
13. Jansen RT, Laeven M, Kardol W. Internal quality control system for non-stationary, non-ergodic analytical processes based upon exponentially weighted estimation of process means and process standard deviation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002;40:616–24.10.1515/CCLM.2002.107Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Bull B, Korpman B. Intralaboratory quality control using patient′s data. In: Covill I, editor. Quality control (methods in hematology). New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1982.Search in Google Scholar
15. Plebani M, Piva E. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate: use of fresh blood for quality control. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:621–6.10.1309/QB1G-6FRR-DNWX-BKQ9Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Algeciras-Schimnich A, Bruns DE, Boyd JC, Bryant SC, La Fortune KA, Grebe SK. Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions. Clin Chem 2013;59:1187–94.10.1373/clinchem.2013.205070Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Bonroy C, Smith V, Van Steendam K, Van Praet J, Deforce D, Devreese K, et al. The integration of the detection of systemic sclerosis-associated antibodies in a routine laboratory setting: comparison of different strategies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:2151–60.10.1515/cclm-2013-0211Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Anderson SG, Addison IE, Dixon HG. Antinuclear-factor serum (homogeneous): an international collaborative study of the proposed research standard 66-233. Ann NY Acad Sci 1971;177:337–45.10.1111/j.1749-6632.1971.tb35063.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Feltkamp TE. Standards for ana and anti-DNA. Clin Rheumatol 1990;9:74–8.10.1007/BF02205554Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:617–27.10.1515/CCLM.2003.093Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Garber C, Carey R. Evaluation of methods. In: Kaplan L, Pesce A, editors. Clinical chemistry: theory, analysis, and correlation. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby, 1989.Search in Google Scholar
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston
