Comparative Analysis of BIOCHIP Mosaic-Based Indirect Immunofluorescence with Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosing Myasthenia Gravis.
BIOCHIP
anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies
anti-muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies
biomarker
diagnosis
myasthenia gravis
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Nov 2021
13 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
28
09
2021
revised:
04
11
2021
accepted:
10
11
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
28
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The detection of anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) and anti-muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibodies is useful in myasthenia gravis (MG) diagnosis and management. BIOCHIP mosaic-based indirect immunofluorescence is a novel analytical method, which employs the simultaneous detection of anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies in a single miniature incubation field. In this study, we compare, for the first time, the BIOCHIP MG mosaic with conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the diagnosis of MG. A total of 71 patients with MG diagnosis were included in the study. Anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies were measured separately by two different ELISA and simultaneously by BIOCHIP. The results were then compared. The overall concordance between ELISA and BIOCHIP for anti-AChR reactivity was 74%. Cohen's kappa was 0.51 (95% CI 0.32-0.71), which corresponds to 90% of the maximum possible kappa (0.57), given the observed marginal frequencies. The overall concordance for anti-MuSK reactivity was 84%. Cohen's kappa was 0.11 (95% CI 0.00-0.36), which corresponds to 41% of the maximum possible kappa (0.27). The overall concordance among assays is not optimal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The detection of anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) and anti-muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) antibodies is useful in myasthenia gravis (MG) diagnosis and management. BIOCHIP mosaic-based indirect immunofluorescence is a novel analytical method, which employs the simultaneous detection of anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies in a single miniature incubation field. In this study, we compare, for the first time, the BIOCHIP MG mosaic with conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the diagnosis of MG.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 71 patients with MG diagnosis were included in the study. Anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies were measured separately by two different ELISA and simultaneously by BIOCHIP. The results were then compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall concordance between ELISA and BIOCHIP for anti-AChR reactivity was 74%. Cohen's kappa was 0.51 (95% CI 0.32-0.71), which corresponds to 90% of the maximum possible kappa (0.57), given the observed marginal frequencies. The overall concordance for anti-MuSK reactivity was 84%. Cohen's kappa was 0.11 (95% CI 0.00-0.36), which corresponds to 41% of the maximum possible kappa (0.27).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The overall concordance among assays is not optimal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34829445
pii: diagnostics11112098
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11112098
pmc: PMC8619605
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 09;11:596621
pubmed: 33362698
Dermatology. 2012;225(1):37-44
pubmed: 22907099
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Apr;15(4):356-7
pubmed: 26971655
Front Neurol. 2020 Nov 30;11:596981
pubmed: 33329350
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985 Dec;48(12):1246-52
pubmed: 4087000
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375(26):2570-2581
pubmed: 28029925
Autoimmunity. 2010 Aug;43(5-6):371-9
pubmed: 20380582
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 31;7(1):14426
pubmed: 29089519
Neurology. 2021 Jan 19;96(3):114-122
pubmed: 33144515
Curr Opin Neurol. 2020 Oct;33(5):545-552
pubmed: 32833750
Autoimmun Rev. 2013 Jul;12(9):918-23
pubmed: 23535160
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1987;505:326-32
pubmed: 3318619
Neurology. 2020 Sep 8;95(10):e1426-e1436
pubmed: 32641537
Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 14;11:212
pubmed: 32117321
Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2018 Jan 18;11:1756285617749134
pubmed: 29403543
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38896
pubmed: 22719979
Brain. 2008 Jul;131(Pt 7):1940-52
pubmed: 18515870
J Neurol. 2012 Mar;259(3):427-35
pubmed: 21814823
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2021 Jun;21(6):579-590
pubmed: 33970749
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 02;11:981
pubmed: 32982957
J Immunol Methods. 2018 Sep;460:107-112
pubmed: 30056940
Indian Dermatol Online J. 2021 Jan 16;12(1):105-109
pubmed: 33768030
Neurosci Bull. 2012 Oct;28(5):469-74
pubmed: 22961471
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36
pubmed: 26376969
Muscle Nerve. 2000 Apr;23(4):453-77
pubmed: 10716755
Neurol Clin. 2018 May;36(2):293-310
pubmed: 29655451
J Immunol Methods. 2019 May;468:35-39
pubmed: 30910537
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30
pubmed: 31048702
Front Immunol. 2020 May 08;11:707
pubmed: 32457737
J Neurol Sci. 2020 Apr 15;411:116690
pubmed: 32028072
Clin Chim Acta. 2006 Feb;364(1-2):159-66
pubmed: 16051208
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jan;34(1):153-160
pubmed: 31260565
Autoimmun Rev. 2013 Jul;12(9):924-30
pubmed: 23537507
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012 Aug 09;7:49
pubmed: 22876746
Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1977 Jan;7(1):36-43
pubmed: 852152
Clin Exp Immunol. 1987 Jan;67(1):82-8
pubmed: 3621677
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 Feb;1413(1):92-103
pubmed: 29377160
J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Sep 15;201-202:95-103
pubmed: 18667243
J Autoimmun. 2014 Aug;52:90-100
pubmed: 24389034
J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Mar;195(1-2):151-6
pubmed: 18384886
Clin Chim Acta. 2004 Oct;348(1-2):95-9
pubmed: 15369741
J Clin Invest. 1996 Nov 15;98(10):2358-63
pubmed: 8941654
Int J Womens Dermatol. 2018 Feb 03;4(2):102-108
pubmed: 29872685
Lab Med. 2019 Jul 16;50(3):229-235
pubmed: 30535084