ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2809

Comparative Analysis of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Testing Using Blinded Replicate Samples Reveals Variability Between Commercial Testing Laboratories

Marc Chevrier, Jarrat Jordan, Jessica Schreiter and Jacqueline Benson, Estrela Lupus Venture, Janssen Research and Development, LLC., Spring House, PA

Meeting: 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 28, 2016

Keywords: ANA, Diagnostic Tests and autoantibodies

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus – Clinical Aspects and Treatment - Poster III: Biomarkers and Nephritis

Session Type: ACR Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Serological positivity defined by presence of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) is frequently used in interventional lupus trials as an inclusion criterion and longitudinal biomarker. As such, consistent and sensitive quantification of ANA during conduct of clinical trials is important. In this study we compared ANA testing results between 3 different commercial laboratories vendors using shared samples to assess variability in analysis.

Methods: Serum samples obtained from commercial sources from 19 anonymous SLE donors meeting ACR criteria were banked and aliquotted. Triplicate samples from each donor were randomized and shipped to 3 different commercial labs for ANA testing with staining patterns (HEp-2.) Reports from each laboratory were unblinded to group each sample replicate for both ANA titer and staining pattern. Inter-sample and inter-laboratory variability were then analyzed descriptively.

Results: Identical SLE patient sera samples analyzed by three laboratories providing ANA testing revealed differences in detection, titer level and staining pattern identification. While high titer ANA were readily detected by all three laboratories, there was significant variability in the assessment of staining patterns by some labs, and patterns present at different titers were often missed. In general, titers within an individual vendor between samples were reported within one fold. Lower titer ANAs <1:160 were more consistently scored as equivocal or absent by some labs, indicating a difference in sensitivity limit utilizing the samples provided.  Table 1. ANA identification by testing laboratories

Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3
19/19 (100%)* 12/19 (63%)* 13/19(68%)*

*Of note, staining patterns from Vendor 1 had 2/19 samples that missed patterns in one triplicate assessment, Vendor 2 had 6/19 missed patterns in one or more triplicate assessments, and Vendor 3 had 3/19 missed patterns in one or more triplicate assessments.

Conclusion: This study suggests that commercial laboratories exhibited variability in terms of ANA titers and staining patterns using identical samples, especially in those of low titer. This occurred in a format consistent with collection in a clinical study and provision to a central laboratory for analysis. Variability was present between sample replicates and also the level of detection between different commercial labs performing ANA testing. This variability may potentially impact patient enrollment in clinical studies, and also the ability to accurately assess the impact of therapeutic interventions using these serological readouts. A key limitation to this study is that samples were accrued and banked to be sent to the analytical laboratory, and some vendor laboratory methodology may be more prone to latency of assessment than others.


Disclosure: M. Chevrier, Janssen Research and Development, LLC., 1,Janssen Research and Development, LLC., 3; J. Jordan, Janssen Research and Development, LLC., 3; J. Schreiter, Janssen Research and Development, LLC., 3; J. Benson, Janssen Research and Development, LLC., 3.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Chevrier M, Jordan J, Schreiter J, Benson J. Comparative Analysis of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Testing Using Blinded Replicate Samples Reveals Variability Between Commercial Testing Laboratories [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016; 68 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparative-analysis-of-anti-nuclear-antibody-testing-using-blinded-replicate-samples-reveals-variability-between-commercial-testing-laboratories/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparative-analysis-of-anti-nuclear-antibody-testing-using-blinded-replicate-samples-reveals-variability-between-commercial-testing-laboratories/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology