AB1071 Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS Action) Core Laboratory Validation Exercise: Comparison of Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CIA) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbant Assay (ELISA):

Diagnostic laboratory tests for systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: unmet needs towards harmonization

Autoantibodies are helpful tools not only for the diagnosis and the classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) but also for sub-grouping patients and/or for monitoring disease activity or specific tissue/organ damage. Consequently, the role of the diagnostic laboratory in the management of SARD is becoming more and more important. The advent of new techniques raised the need of updating and harmonizing our use/interpretation of the assays. We discuss in this opinion paper some of these issues. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) was originally suggested as the reference technique for anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) detection as previous solid phase assays (SPA) displayed lower sensitivity. The new available SPA are now offering better results and can represent alternative or even complementary diagnostic tools for ANA detection. The improved sensitivity of SPA technology is also changing our interpretation of the results for other types of autoantibody assays, but we need updating their calibration and new reference materials are going to be obtained in order to harmonize the assays. There is growing evidence that the identification of autoantibody combinations or profiles is helpful in improving diagnosis, patients’ subgrouping and predictivity for disease evolution in the field of SARD. We report some explanatory examples to support the idea to make the use of these autoantibody profiles more and more popular. The technological evolution of the autoimmune assays is going to change our routine diagnostic laboratory tests for SARD and validation of new algorithms is needed in order to harmonize our approach to the issue.