Related Experiment Videos
Comparison between the standard anticardiolipin antibody test and a new phospholipid test in patients with connective
P A Merkel1, Y Chang, S S Pierangeli
1Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. pmerkel@bu.edu
Objective:
Antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies are present in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) and are associated with recurrent thromboses, thrombocytopenia, and pregnancy losses. The presence of aPL antibodies is routinely tested using a standardized ELISA that utilizes cardiolipin as antigen (aCL ELISA). This test, although sensitive, is frequently positive in patients with nonrelated autoimmune disorders and some infectious diseases, making the test less specific. Thus there is a need for more specific tests for aCL with equivalent sensitivity to the standard assay. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of a new aPL antibody test kit with a unique phospholipid mixture designed to be more specific than the standard anticardiolipin ELISA.
Methods:
aPL antibodies (IgG, IgM) were measured by both a standard ELISA and a new ELISA kit (APhL ELISA Kit, Louisville APL Diagnostics, Inc., Louisville, KY, USA) in the baseline serum from patients enrolled in a 5 year inception cohort, prospective study of early rheumatoid diseases: rheumatoid arthritis (N = 70), SLE (70), scleroderma (45), inflammatory myositis (36), and early undifferentiated connective tissue disease (CTD) (165). Diagnosis was based on standardized criteria and determined at the last study visit. A nested group of patients with Sjogren's syndrome (44) was also defined. Serum from 200 blood donors (BD) served as controls. Patients with known APS (33) and antinuclear cytoplasmic antibody positive renal vasculitis (52) were also studied. Laboratory personnel were blinded to sample diagnostic group.
Results:
The kit was 90.9% sensitive for detecting APS. Seven patients missed by the kit all had standard aCL values < 40 PL units. Assuming controls do not have APS, the kit was 99.5% specific vs 96.0% for the standard assay. For the patients with CTD, the kit never detected a patient that was not also detected by the standard aCL assay.
Conclusion:
The APhL ELISA Kit appears to be more specific than the standard aCL ELISA without adding potential false positive results. The new test may be useful for followup study for patients found to be aCL positive by standard assays to increase specificity for aCL screening.