Detection of Antibodies against the Acetylcholine Receptor in Patients with Myasthenia Gravis: A Comparison of Two Enzyme Immunoassays and a Fixed Cell-Based Assay.
CBA
ELISA
acetylcholine receptor antibody
diagnosis
myasthenia gravis
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2023
19 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
11
05
2023
revised:
28
06
2023
accepted:
18
07
2023
medline:
29
7
2023
pubmed:
29
7
2023
entrez:
29
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The detection of serum anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies is currently an important tool for diagnosing myasthenia gravis (MG) since they are present in about 85% of MG patients. Many serological tests are now available. Nevertheless, results from these tests can be different in some patients. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of a commercially available fixed cell-based assay (F-CBA) to that of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for anti-AChR detection in patients with a diagnosis of MG. Overall, 143 patients with a confirmed MG diagnosis were included in the study. The detection and measurement of serum anti-AChR antibodies were performed by three analytical methods, namely, a competitive ELISA (cELISA), an indirect ELISA (iELISA), and an F-CBA, according to the manufacturers' instructions. Anti-AChR antibody titers were positive in 94/143 (66%) using the cELISA, in 75/143 (52%) using the iELISA and in 61/143 (43%) using the F-CBA (adult and/or fetal). Method agreement, evaluated by concordant pairs and Cohen's kappa, was as follows: cELISA-iELISA: 110/143 (77%), k = 0.53 (95%CI 0.40-0.66); cELISA-F-CBA: 108/143 (76%), k = 0.53 (95%CI 0.41-0.66); iELISA-F-CBA: 121/143 (85%), k = 0.70 (95%CI 0.57-0.80). Our findings show that the cELISA has better analytical performance than the iELISA and F-CBA. However, the iELISA and F-CBA show the highest concordance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37510896
pii: jcm12144781
doi: 10.3390/jcm12144781
pmc: PMC10381261
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 09;11:596621
pubmed: 33362698
Nat Med. 2001 Mar;7(3):365-8
pubmed: 11231638
J Neuroimmunol. 2016 Mar 15;292:108-15
pubmed: 26943968
Neurol Sci. 2019 Jun;40(6):1111-1124
pubmed: 30778878
Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 14;11:212
pubmed: 32117321
Brain. 2008 Jul;131(Pt 7):1940-52
pubmed: 18515870
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Sep;998:356-8
pubmed: 14592896
F1000Res. 2016 Jun 27;5:
pubmed: 27408701
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2022 Oct 21;10(1):
pubmed: 36270951
J Clin Neurol. 2021 Jul;17(3):400-408
pubmed: 34184448
Neurology. 2009 May 5;72(18):1548-54
pubmed: 19414721
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36
pubmed: 26376969
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30
pubmed: 31048702
Muscle Nerve. 2012 Sep;46(3):440-2
pubmed: 22907237
Am J Pathol. 2012 Feb;180(2):798-810
pubmed: 22142810
J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Sep 15;201-202:95-103
pubmed: 18667243
Clin Chim Acta. 2004 Oct;348(1-2):95-9
pubmed: 15369741
Lab Med. 2019 Jul 16;50(3):229-235
pubmed: 30535084
J Neurol Sci. 2022 Jan 15;432:120084
pubmed: 34906880
J Neuroimmunol. 2021 Jul 15;356:577588
pubmed: 33962172
Autoimmune Dis. 2011;2011:847393
pubmed: 22007295
Front Immunol. 2021 Jul 08;12:666046
pubmed: 34305897
Neurology. 2021 Jan 19;96(3):114-122
pubmed: 33144515
Muscle Nerve. 2020 Sep;62(3):333-343
pubmed: 32483837
Clin Chim Acta. 2006 Feb;364(1-2):159-66
pubmed: 16051208
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Nov 13;11(11):
pubmed: 34829445
Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1977 Jan;7(1):36-43
pubmed: 852152
Neurology. 2016 Jul 26;87(4):419-25
pubmed: 27358333
Autoimmun Rev. 2013 Jul;12(9):875-84
pubmed: 23535159
J Neuromuscul Dis. 2018;5(2):261-264
pubmed: 29865092
Front Neurol. 2022 May 20;13:912050
pubmed: 35669883