The indirect immunofluorescence assay autoantibody profiles of myositis patients without known myositis-specific autoantibodies
- PMID: 32896249
- PMCID: PMC11669107
- DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/7kyr5e
The indirect immunofluorescence assay autoantibody profiles of myositis patients without known myositis-specific autoantibodies
Abstract
Objectives: The indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) is used to screen for the presence of autoantibodies. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and clinical features of IIFA positive myositis patients without known myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSA).
Methods: Sera from healthy comparators (HC) and patients with dermatomyositis (DM), inclusion body myositis (IBM), and polymyositis (PM) with no detectable MSA were tested by IIFA on HEp-2 cells. The pattern of positivity was classified according to the International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody Patterns. The prevalence and frequency of each IIFA pattern were compared between the different groups.
Results: Sera from 100 HC, 71 DM, 53 IBM, and 69 PM subjects were included in the study. The IIFA was positive in 35% HC compared to 66% DM (p<0.001), 49% IBM, and 64% (p<0.001) PM sera. Among IIFA positive sera, the staining was moderate or intense in 43% HC compared to 79% DM (p<0.001) but just 54% IBM, and 52% PM sera. IIFA positivity was predominantly nuclear in all groups (all >69%). The most common pattern in myositis patients was fine speckled with no differences between groups. In general, IIFA positive and negative DM patients showed similar clinical features and disease activity.
Conclusions: Half of MSA-negative DM patients have moderate/strong IIFA positivity, predominantly with a fine speckled pattern. In contrast, MSA-negative PM, IBM, and healthy comparators are more often weakly positive for IIFA. These findings suggest that unidentified autoantibodies are more likely to exist in DM patients than in the other myositis groups.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: L. Christopher-Stine receives royalties from Inova Diagnostics/RDL laboratories for anti-HMGCR autoantibody testing; the other co-authors have declared no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
The influence of demography and referral medical specialty on the detection of autoantibodies to HEP-2 cells in a large sample of patients.Adv Rheumatol. 2022 Aug 15;62(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s42358-022-00264-1. Adv Rheumatol. 2022. PMID: 35971154
-
Myositis-Specific Antibodies and Myositis-Associated Antibodies in Patients With Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies From the PANLAR Myositis Study Group.J Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Dec 1;27(8):e302-e306. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001350. J Clin Rheumatol. 2021. PMID: 32084069
-
Comprehensive assessment of myositis-specific autoantibodies in polymyositis/dermatomyositis-associated interstitial lung disease.Respir Med. 2016 Dec;121:91-99. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.10.019. Epub 2016 Nov 2. Respir Med. 2016. PMID: 27888997
-
[Polymyositis, dermatomyositis and inclusion body myositis, nosological aspects].Presse Med. 2003 Oct 25;32(35):1656-67. Presse Med. 2003. PMID: 14631270 Review. French.
-
Association of various myositis-specific autoantibodies with dermatomyositis and polymyositis triggered by pregnancy.Rheumatol Int. 2022 Jul;42(7):1271-1280. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04851-1. Epub 2021 Apr 10. Rheumatol Int. 2022. PMID: 33837447 Review.
References
-
-
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY. CURRENT PRACTICE ISSUES: ACR TRACKING CONCERNS ABOUT ANA TESTING RESULTS ATLANTA GACOR.
-
-
- MERONI PL, SCHUR PH: ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 1420–2. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical