Semiquantitative interpretation of anticardiolipin and antiβ2glycoprotein I antibodies measured with various analytical platforms: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies.
antiphospholipid antibodies
classification
immunoassay
risk
thresholds
Journal
Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH
ISSN: 1538-7836
Titre abrégé: J Thromb Haemost
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170508
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
22
10
2021
received:
28
07
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
pubmed:
11
11
2021
medline:
16
3
2022
entrez:
10
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms. To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds. aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated. Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM. Use of 40/80 units as medium/high thresholds is acceptable for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG ELISA, but not for CLIA and MFI. Alternative semiquantitative thresholds for non-ELISA platforms can be determined by a clinical approach or by using monoclonal antibodies. Semiquantitative reporting of aPL IgM has less impact on increasing probability for APS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Antiβ2glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) and anticardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM show differences in positive/negative agreement and titers between solid phase platforms. Method-specific semiquantitative categorization of titers could improve and harmonize the interpretation across platforms.
AIM
To evaluate the traditional 40/80-unit thresholds used for aCL and aβ2GPI for categorization into moderate/high positivity with different analytical systems, and to compare with alternative thresholds.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
aCL and aβ2GPI thresholds were calculated for two automated systems (chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] and multiplex flow immunoassay [MFI]) by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on 1108 patient samples, including patients with and without antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and confirmed on a second population (n = 279). Alternatively, regression analysis on diluted standard material was applied to identify thresholds. Thresholds were compared to 40/80 threshold measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Additionally, likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated.
RESULTS
Threshold levels of 40/80 units show poor agreement between ELISA and automated platforms for classification into low/moderate/high positivity, especially for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG. Agreement for semiquantitative interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) IgG between ELISA and CLIA/MFI improves with alternative thresholds. LR for aPL IgG increase for thrombotic and obstetric APS based on 40/80 thresholds for ELISA and adapted thresholds for the other systems, but not for IgM.
CONCLUSION
Use of 40/80 units as medium/high thresholds is acceptable for aCL/aβ2GPI IgG ELISA, but not for CLIA and MFI. Alternative semiquantitative thresholds for non-ELISA platforms can be determined by a clinical approach or by using monoclonal antibodies. Semiquantitative reporting of aPL IgM has less impact on increasing probability for APS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34758192
doi: 10.1111/jth.15585
pii: S1538-7836(22)02804-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Anticardiolipin
0
Antibodies, Antiphospholipid
0
Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor
0
beta 2-Glycoprotein I
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
508-524Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
Références
Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:295-306.
Devreese KMJ, Ortel TL, Pengo V, de Laat B. Laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:809-813.
Devreese KMJ, de Groot PG, de Laat B, et al. Guidance from the Scientific and Standardization Committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2828-2839.
Devreese KM, Pierangeli SS, de Laat B, Tripodi A, Atsumi T, Ortel TL. Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies with solid phase assays: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12:792-795.
Garcia D, Erkan D. Diagnosis and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2010-2021.
Wong R, Favaloro E, Pollock W, et al. A multi-centre evaluation of the intra-assay and inter-assay variation of commercial and in-house anti-cardiolipin antibody assays. Pathology. 2004;36:182-192.
Chayoua W, Kelchtermans H, Moore GW, et al. Detection of anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta2glycoprotein I antibodies differs between platforms without influence on association with clinical symptoms. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119:797-806.
Devreese KM. Antiphospholipid antibody testing and standardization. Int J Lab Hematol. 2014;36:352-363.
Favaloro EJ, Wheatland L, Jovanovich S, Roberts-Thomson P, Wong RC. Internal quality control and external quality assurance in testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Part I-Anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2012;38:390-403.
Tincani A, Allegri F, Sanmarco M, et al. Anticardiolipin antibody assay: a methodological analysis for a better consensus in routine determinations-a cooperative project of the European Antiphospholipid Forum. Thromb Haemost. 2001;86:575-583.
Devreese KMJ. Testing for antiphospholipid antibodies: Advances and best practices. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. 2020;42(Suppl 1):49-58.
Montaruli B, De Luna E, Erroi L, et al. Analytical and clinical comparison of different immunoassay systems for the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies. Int J Lab Hematol. 2016;38:172-182.
Devreese KM, Van Hoecke F. Anticardiolipin and anti-beta2glycoprotein-I antibody cut-off values in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome: more than calculating the in-house 99th percentiles, even for new automated assays. Thromb Res. 2011;128:598-600.
Harris EN, Pierangeli SS. Revisiting the anticardiolipin test and its standardization. Lupus. 2002;11:269-275.
Devreese KMJ. How to Interpret Antiphospholipid Laboratory Tests. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2020;22:38.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012;22:276-282.
Sayar Z, Moll R, Isenberg D, Cohen H. Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a practical guide to diagnosis and management. Thromb Res. 2021;198:213-221.
Schreiber K, Sciascia S, de Groot PG, et al. Antiphospholipid syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:17103.
Tektonidou MG, Andreoli L, Limper M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1296-1304.
Harris EN. Special report. The Second International Anti-cardiolipin Standardization Workshop/the Kingston Anti-Phospholipid Antibody Study (KAPS) group. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990;94:476-484.
Levine SR, Salowich-Palm L, Sawaya KL, et al. IgG anticardiolipin antibody titer >40 GPL and the risk of subsequent thrombo-occlusive events and death. A prospective cohort study. Stroke. 1997;28:1660-1665.
Finazzi G. The Italian registry of antiphospholipid antibodies. Haematologica. 1997;82:101-105.
Lakos G, Bentow C, Mahler M. A clinical approach for defining the threshold between low and medium anti-cardiolipin antibody levels for QUANTA flash assays. Antibodies. 2016;5(2):14.
Devreese KM, Poncet A, Lindhoff-Last E, Musial J, de Moerloose P, Fontana P. A multicenter study to assess the reproducibility of antiphospholipid antibody results produced by an automated system. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15:91-95.
Van Hoecke F, Persijn L, Decavele AS, Devreese K. Performance of two new, automated chemiluminescence assay panels for anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies in the laboratory diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Int J Lab Hematol. 2012;34:630-640.
Grossi V, Infantino M, Benucci M, et al. Two novel technologies for the detection of anti-cardiolipin and anti beta2-glycoprotein antibodies in the real life: chemiluminescent in comparison to the addressable laser bead immunoassays. Immunol Invest. 2020;49:58-68.
Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European league against rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1400-1412.
Barbhaiya M, Zuily S, Ahmadzadeh Y, et al. Development of New International Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria Phase I/II Report: Generation and Reduction of Candidate Criteria. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;73:1490-1501.
Bossuyt X, Rasmussen N, van Paassen P, et al. A multicentre study to improve clinical interpretation of proteinase-3 and myeloperoxidase anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Rheumatology. 2017;56:1533-1541.
Escalante A, Brey RL, Mitchell BD Jr, Dreiner U. Accuracy of anticardiolipin antibodies in identifying a history of thrombosis among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Med. 1995;98:559-565.
Kelchtermans H, Pelkmans L, de Laat B, Devreese KM. IgG/IgM antiphospholipid antibodies present in the classification criteria for the antiphospholipid syndrome: a critical review of their association with thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:1530-1548.
Galli M, Reber G, de Moerloose P, de Groot PG. Invitation to a debate on the serological criteria that define the antiphospholipid syndrome. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6:399-401.
Pengo V. A contribution to the debate on the laboratory criteria that define the antiphospholipid syndrome. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6:1048-1049.
Del Ross T, Ruffatti A, Cuffaro S, et al. The clinical relevance of the IgM isotype of antiphospholipid antibodies in the vascular antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb Res. 2015;136:883-886.
Chayoua W, Kelchtermans H, Gris JC, et al. The (non-)sense of detecting anti-cardiolipin and anti-beta2glycoprotein I IgM antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:169-179.
Zuily S, de Laat B, Guillemin F, et al. Anti-domain I beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies and activated protein C resistance predict thrombosis in antiphospholipid syndrome: TAC(I)T study. J Appl Lab Med. 2020;5:1242-1252.