Journal of The Academy of Clinical Microbiologists

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  26 (2024)
Volume  25 (2023)
Volume  24 (2022)
Volume  23 (2021)
Volume  22 (2020)
Volume  21 (2019)
Volume  20 (2018)
Volume  19 (2017)
Volume  18 (2016)
Volume  17 (2015)
Volume  16 (2014)
Volume  15 (2013)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2015 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases and their interpretation in the clinical situation

Jacinth Angel, Marina Thomas, Boppe Appalaraju

Keywords : Antinuclear antibodies - ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence, detection of antinuclear antibodies, connective tissue diseases diagnosis

Citation Information : Angel J, Thomas M, Appalaraju B. Evaluation of ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases and their interpretation in the clinical situation. 2015; 17 (1):7-11.

DOI: 10.4103/0972-1282.158776

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Published Online: 15-07-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Systemic autoimmune diseases include conditions where the immune system fails to recognize self antigens leading to production of “auto antibodies” and subsequent damage to several organs and tissue systems, e.g., Systemic lupus erythematosus, Scleroderma or Systemic sclerosis, Dermatomyosits, Polyarteritis nodosa and Mixed connective tissue disease. Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) has been found to be the single most important criteria for the diagnosis of connective tissue disorders. Materials and Methods: The commonly used methods to detect ANA like ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) were evaluated in this study. Results: ELISA showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false positive rate and false negative rate of 93%, 54%, 60%, 92%, 45% and 7% respectively when compared to IFA. Conclusions: ELISA is non-specific and less useful as a diagnostic test whereas ANA IFA is a more accurate test and the gold standard.

PDF Share
  1. Homburger HA, Cahen YD, Griffiths J, Jacob GL. Detection of antinuclear antibodies: Comparative evaluation of enzyme immunoassay and indirect immunofluorescence methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:993-9.
  2. Satoh M, Vázquez-Del Mercado M, Chan EK. Clinical interpretation of antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases. Mod Rheumatol 2009;19:219-28.
  3. Abdelbaky MS, Mansour HE, Ibrahim SI, Hassan IA. Prevalence of connective tissue diseases in egyptian patients presenting with Fever of unknown origin. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2011;4:33-41.
  4. Divate S, Hardikar P, Bichile LS, Rajadhyaksha A. Clinical utility of screening for antinuclear antibodies by enzyme immunoassay - A preliminary study. J Assoc Physicians India 2004;52:290-3.
  5. Gniewek RA, Stites DP, McHugh TM, Hilton JF, Nakagawa M. Comparison of antinuclear antibody testing methods: Immunofluorescence assay versus enzyme immunoassay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1997;4:185-8.
  6. Tozzoli R, Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, Villalta D, Bassetti D, Manoni F, et al. Guidelines for the laboratory use of autoantibody tests in the diagnosis and monitoring of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:316-24.
  7. Greidinge EL, Hoffman RW. Antinuclear antibody testing: Methods, indications, and interpretation. Lab Med 2003;34:2.
  8. Martinez-Lavin M, Vaughan JH, Tan EM. Autoantibodies and the spectrum of Sjögren's syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:185-90.
  9. Roberts-Thomson PJ, Nikoloutsopoulos T, Cox S, Walker JG, Gordon TP. Antinuclear antibody testing in a regional immunopathology laboratory. Immunol Cell Biol 2003;81:409-12.
  10. Longo L, Fauci S, Dennis L, Hauser L, Jameson J. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. Ch. 319, 323. McGraw Hill: SLE; 2011. p. II.
  11. Parslow G, Stites DP, Terr AI, Imboden JB. Medical Immunology. 10th ed., Ch. 31. McGraw Hill; 2003.
  12. White RH, Robbins DL. Clinical significance and interpretation of antinuclear antibodies. West J Med 1987;147:210-3.
  13. Egner W. The use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of SLE. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:424-32.
  14. Check W. Making sense of the ANA hodgepodge. CAP Today 2009; September.
  15. Malaviya AN, Chandrasekaran AN, Kumar A, Shamar PN. Systemic lupus erythematosus in India. Lupus 1997; 6:690-700.
  16. Uramoto KM, Michet CJ Jr, Thumboo J, Sunku J, O'Fallon WM, Gabriel SE. Trends in the incidence and mortality of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1950-1992. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:46-50.
  17. Kumar A. Indian guidelines on the management of SLE. J Indian Rheumatol Assoc 2002;10:80-96.
  18. Gunnarsson R, Molberg O, Gilboe IM, Gran JT; PAHNOR Study Group. The prevalence and incidence of mixed connective tissue disease: A national multicentre survey of Norwegian patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1047-51.
  19. Paul BJ, Fassaludeen M, Nandakumar, Razia MV. Clinical profile of systemic lupus erythematosus in northern Kerala. J Rheumatol Assoc 2003;11:94-7.
  20. Gaubitz M. Epidemiology of connective tissue disorders. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45 Suppl 3:iii3-4.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.