Skip to main content

Translate

ANA Testing Dilemmas: Unravelling Discordant Results Between ELISA, IFA, and LIA Methods

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are autoantibodies that target components of the cell nucleus. Their presence is associated with various autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren's syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis, among others. Detecting ANAs is crucial for diagnosing these diseases, monitoring disease activity, and predicting clinical outcomes. Over the years, several methods have been developed to detect ANAs, each with its significance and limitations. Different methods of ANA detection may yield different results due to variations in antigen specificity, sensitivity, and interpretative criteria. 

ANA test by ELISA method:
The ELISA method offers a   semi-quantitative or quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to nuclear and cytoplasmic antigens in the bloodstream and is one of the commonly utilized techniques alongside the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). While ELISA offers specificity and quantification, it is essential to interpret results cautiously, considering the clinical context, patient's symptoms, and other diagnostic findings. A positive ANA by ELISA does not confirm a specific diagnosis but suggests the need for further evaluation.

ANA by IFA method:
In ANA test by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), patterns can be diverse, and interpreting the results requires expertise. These patterns can be suggestive but not definitive of specific autoimmune diseases. IFA is considered the gold standard for ANA detection due to its high sensitivity. However, false-positive results can occur, especially at lower dilutions, leading to potential misinterpretations.

ENA profile (ANA by LIA/ Immunoblot):
ENA profile is a subset of ANA testing that focuses on identifying specific autoantibodies against Extractable Nuclear Antigens (ENA) associated with particular autoimmune diseases. ENA testing is typically performed using specialized laboratory techniques such as immunoblotting, line immunoassay (LIA), or enzyme  immunosorbent assay (EIA or ELISA). The results identify the presence or absence of specific autoantibodies against particular ENAs, providing a more targeted and disease-specific analysis compared to ANA testing alone.  LIA offers high sensitivity and specificity, with the advantage of automation, reducing variability and improving reproducibility compared to manual methods like Immunoblotting.

Remember, the relationship between these tests can be described as follows: ANA by ELISA and ANA by IFA are used to screen for the presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) in a patient's blood, while ENA profile is a subsequent test used to identify and differentiate specific extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs) targeted by the ANAs. Together, these tests help in the diagnosis and classification of autoimmune diseases, especially those with systemic involvement. However, it's important to note that the interpretation of these tests should always be done by experienced medical professionals in the context of the patient's clinical presentation and other relevant diagnostic information.

Limitations and Challenges:
  • A positive ANA test does not necessarily indicate the presence of an autoimmune disease, as ANAs can also be present in healthy individuals or individuals with infections, malignancies, other non-autoimmune conditions and due to specific medications.
  • In early stages of certain autoimmune diseases or in patients with low levels of ANAs, the concentration of antibodies may be below the detection limit of the kit, resulting in false negative results.
  • While ANA by ELISA tests are sensitive, they lack specificity. Variability in antigen preparation, specificity, and assay conditions can lead to false-positive or false-negative results.
  • ANA IFA patterns can be diverse, and interpreting the results requires expertise and can be subjective, leading to variability among observers. 
  • Different methods of ANA detection may yield different results due to variations in antigen specificity, sensitivity, and interpretative criteria.
  • Factors such as sample degradation, inadequate sample volume, or improper storage can affect the accuracy of LIA results, potentially leading to false negative outcomes.
  • IFA might be more sensitive in detecting certain patterns of ANA, which could be missed by ELISA.

The discordance result between different methods of ANA tests can pose challenges in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune diseases. Here's a breakdown of potential reasons for discordance and their implications:
  • The methodologies, reagents, and platforms used in ELISA, IFA, and LIA differ, potentially leading to variations in results.
  • The sensitivity and specificity of each method may vary based on the antigens they detect and the techniques employed. Differences in assay sensitivity can result in positive results in one test and negative in another.

In all cases of discordant results, the interpretation should be done cautiously, considering the clinical presentation and other relevant diagnostic information. Sometimes, additional tests or repeat testing may be necessary to clarify the diagnosis. A sequential approach—starting with a broad test like ANA by IFA and then moving to more specific tests like ENA by LIA—can be beneficial to refine the diagnosis. In cases of clinical suspicion with initial discordant results, re-testing after some time or using alternative methods can help clarify the diagnosis.

In summary, understanding the strengths, limitations, and potential discrepancies associated with each method is essential for accurate interpretation, clinical correlation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Standardization and ongoing research are essential to improve the accuracy and utility of ANA testing in clinical practice.


Dr Prashant Goyal.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pitfalls of Routine Health check-ups During Acute Illness: What You Need to Know

Preventive health check-ups , which typically include a series of blood tests, play a crucial role in maintaining overall well-being. These check-ups help identify potential health issues early, allowing for timely intervention. However, while these screenings are essential, the timing of when you undergo them is equally important. Getting routine blood tests during an acute illness—such as the flu, a stomach bug, or even a common cold—can lead to misleading results and unnecessary concerns. Here’s why it’s best to delay preventive health check-ups until after you've fully recovered from an acute illness. Understanding Acute Illness and Its Impact on Blood Tests: An acute illness refers to a sudden onset condition that usually lasts for a short period. Common examples include the flu, fever, a cold, or gastroenteritis (Vomiting, Diarrhoea). Although these illnesses are temporary, they cause significant changes in the body’s physiology as it works to fight off the infection or infla...
Post a Comment
Read more

High Urine Sugar and Normal Blood Sugar: Uncovering the Mysteries of Glycosuria

  Glycosuria , the presence of glucose in urine, is commonly associated with diabetes, where high blood sugar levels lead to the spillage of glucose into the urine. However, a perplexing scenario arises when glycosuria occurs alongside normal blood sugar levels. This intriguing condition challenges conventional medical understanding and prompts a deeper exploration into its causes and implications. Under normal circumstances, the kidneys filter blood, reabsorbing glucose back into the bloodstream and preventing its excretion in urine. Glycosuria typically indicates a disruption in this process, often linked to hyperglycemia (high blood sugar levels). But when blood glucose levels are within normal ranges, the puzzle deepens. Possible Causes of Glycosuria with Normal Blood Sugar:  Several conditions and factors can lead to this unusual phenomenon: Renal Glycosuria: A rare inherited condition where the renal tubules are unable to reabsorb glucose efficiently, leading to its pre...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is Human Metapneumovirus (hMPV)? Signs, Risks, and How to Stay Safe.

Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) is an important but often underappreciated respiratory virus that belongs to the Paramyxoviridae family. First identified in 2001, hMPV has emerged as a leading cause of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), particularly in young children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals. hMPV is distributed globally, with infections occurring year-round but peaking in late winter and early spring in temperate climates. Studies suggest that nearly all children are exposed to the virus by the age of five. Reinfections are common throughout life, although they tend to be less severe in healthy adults. Clinical Features:  The spectrum of hMPV infection ranges from asymptomatic to severe disease. Common clinical manifestations include: Mild upper respiratory tract symptoms: Runny nose, cough, and sore throat. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs): Bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and exacerbation of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmo...
Post a Comment
Read more