Distribution of the patterns in patients with positive antinuclear antibody and anti-extractable nuclear antigen

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 31 - 36, 30.09.2016

Keramettin Yanık

https://doi.org/10.5455/jicm.11.20160629

Öz

Background: Early
diagnosis of autoimmune disorders is critical in order to prevent
complications, morbidity and mortality. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) tests are
commonly used in support of the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases. In the
present study, we aimed to compare and evaluate the ANA patterns which were
determined via an IFA method for the detection of the presence of autoantibody
against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA).

Material and Methods: Antinuclear antibodies were tested for a total of 5453
patients admitted to various clinics of Ondokuz Mayıs University Medical
Faculty. A 1:100 dilution of each serum sample was used, and the presence of
ANA and staining pattern was evaluated with ANA-IFA. A total of 616 ANA-positive
samples were also tested for anti-ENA using the same method.

Results: ANA
tests were detected as positive in 843 samples (15.5%). Amongst patients, 624
(74%) were female, and 219 (26%) were male. Anti-ENA antibodies were positive
for 192 (31.2%) of 616 which are positive for ANA and of which anti-ENA was
sought. Of those, the most common-ANA patterns were detected as speckled in 144
(75.0%) samples, nucleolar in 20 (10.4%), and homogeneous in 13 (6.8%) samples.
The most common anti-ENA antibodies were found to be anti-SS-A in 50 samples
(26.0%), RO-52 in 39 (20.3%), and anti-scl-70 in 34 (17.7%) samples.

Conclusion:
Findings of the present study suggested that anti-ENA antibodies do not follow
a specific ANA pattern an ANA pattern isn’t related to a specific anti-ENA
antibody type. However, the presence of various ANA patterns may sometimes be
associated with a specific disease or a syndrome. Detection of antinuclear
antibodies, determination of the ANA patterns and, assessment of different ENA antibody
types and interpretation of the results altogether will help the clinician
significantly in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Antinuclear antibodies, indirect immune fluorescence, extractable nuclear antigen

Kaynakça

• Hu J, Meng W, Zhang D, Qiu C, Hua L, Xie Q, et al. Th17-relevant cytokines vary with sera of different ANA staining patterns. Int Immunopharmacol 2013; 15: 679-684.
• Satoh M, Vázquez-Del Mercado M, Chan EK. Clinical interpretation of antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases. Mod Rheumatol 2009; 19: 219-228.
• Zafrir Y, Gilburd B, Carrasco MG, Kivity S, Sánchez-Castañón M, López-Hoyos M, et al. Evaluation of an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay kit for antinuclear antibodies in autoimmune diseases. Immunol Res 2013; 56: 451-456.
• Avery TY, Cruys MVD, Austen J, Stals F, Damoiseaux JGMC. Anti-nuclear antibodies in daily clinical practice: prevalence in primary, secondary, and tertiary care. Journal of immunology research 2014;1-8 doi.org/10.1155/2014/401739
• Almeida González D, Cabrera de León A, Rodríguez Pérez Mdel C, Brito Díaz B, González Hernández A, García García D, et al. Efficiency of different strategies to detect autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens. J Immunol Methods 2010; 360: 89-95.
• Egner W. The use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of SLE. Clin Pathol 2000; 53: 424-432.