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: 15

Performance of an Automated Chemiluminescence Assay for Anti-Cardiolipin and Anti-Beta2glycoprotein I Antibodies Detection in a Cohort of 400 Clinically Characterized Consecutive Routine Samples

Alessandra Zanola1, Laura Andreoli1, Cecilia Nalli1, Flavio Allegri1, Michael Mahler2, Gary Norman3 and Angela Tincani1, 1Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Spedali Civili and University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, 2Research, INOVA Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, 3INOVA Diagnostics, San Diego, CA

Meeting: 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Antiphospholipid antibodies

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Title: Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Several immunoassays are available for the detection of anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta2glycoprotein I antibodies (anti-B2GPI), but standardization and harmonization of these tests is an ongoing process. Here we aimed to comparing the performance of an automated chemiluminescence assay with a validated in-house ELISA method, using clinically characterized samples derived from a routine diagnostic workup for the detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL).

Methods: A total of 400 samples with a complete aPL panel (aCL IgG/IgM and anti-B2GPI IgG/IgM determined by an in-house ELISA, Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) tested with a DRVVT and aPTT based method) were collected. All the samples were tested for aCL IgG/IgM and anti-B2GPI IgG/IgM by QUANTA Flash CIA (INOVA). The two assays were compared using a definition of aPL profile for each isotype (single vs double positive samples). The clinical diagnosis/reason for aPL detection was retrieved. Subjects were grouped upon the clinical situation: A) clinical features compatible with Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) and/or other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) (patients considered at risk of aPL-related manifestations); B) clinical features other than A; C) unresolved clinical picture.

Results: The two assays displayed a good overall agreement for both IgG and IgM detection (81% and 84% respectively). Such agreement can be estimated to be higher after reconciliation of discrepant results using clinical features and degree of aPL positivity. The majority of discrepant results for both IgG and IgM assays were due to low titer values. No significant difference was found in the rate of group A patients in the two subgroups of discrepant samples (ELISA pos – CIA neg and viceversa) (Chi squared test). LA was positive in 11/75 (15%) for IgG assays and in 9/63 (15%) for IgM assays discrepant samples.

 

IgG assays

QUANTA Flash CIA

aCL pos and

anti-B2GPI pos

(double pos)

aCL pos or

anti-B2GPI pos

(single pos)

 

aCL neg and

anti-B2GPI neg (double neg)

 

Total

In-house

ELISA

aCL pos and

anti-B2GPI pos

(double pos)

13

(3.3%)

0

 

0

 

13

(3.2%)

aCL pos or

anti-B2GPI pos

(single pos)

6

(1.5%)

14

(3.5%)

35

(8.8%)

55

(13.8%)

aCL neg and

anti-B2GPI neg

(double neg)

8

(2%)

26

(6.5%)

298

(74.5%)

332

(83%)

Total

27

(6.8%)

40

(10%)

333

(83.2%)

400 (100%)

 

IgM assays

QUANTA Flash CIA

aCL pos and

anti-B2GPI pos

(double pos)

aCL pos or

 anti-B2GPI pos

(single pos)

 

aCL neg and

anti-B2GPI neg (double neg)

 

Total

In-house

ELISA

aCL pos and

anti-B2GPI pos

(double pos)

12

(3%)

5

(1.3%)

6

(1.5%)

23

(5.8%)

aCL pos or

anti-B2GPI pos

(single pos)

3

(0.8%)

7

(1.8%)

46

(11.5%)

56

(14%)

aCL neg and

anti-B2GPI neg

(double neg)

0

3

(0.8%)

318

(79.5%)

321

(80.2%)

Total

15

(3.8%)

15

(3.8%)

370

(92.4%)

400

(100%)

 

Discrepant results

IgG assays (n=75)

IgM assays (n=63)

ELISA pos – CIA neg

IgG n=35/75 (47%)

IgM n=57/63 (90%)

Positive LA n=11 (15%)

Group A: 23/35 (66%)

Group B: 87/35 (23%)

Group C: 4/35 (11%)

Low titer: 27/35 (77%)

Group A: 40/57 (70%)

Group B: 13/57 (23%)

Group C:  4/57 (7%)

Low titer: 45/57 (79%)

ELISA neg – CIA pos

IgG n=40/75 (53%)

IgM n=6/63 (10%)

Positive LA n=9 (15%)

Group A: 30/40 (75%)

Group B: 7/40 (18%)

Group C: 3/40 (7%)

Low titer: 34/40 (85%)

Group A: 5/6 (83%)

Group B: 1/6 (17%)

Group C: 0 (11%)

Low titer: 4/6 (67%)

Conclusion: In-house ELISA assays and the CIA assays displayed a comparable performance in the detection of aCL and anti-beta2GPI. Discrepant results were mostly due to values in the low positive range. The clinical features of the subjects are crucial information to interpret results when comparing different assays for aPL detection.


Disclosure:

A. Zanola,
None;

L. Andreoli,
None;

C. Nalli,
None;

F. Allegri,
None;

M. Mahler,

Inova Diagnostics, Inc., San Diego, CA,

3;

G. Norman,

Employee of INOVA Diagnostics,

3;

A. Tincani,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/performance-of-an-automated-chemiluminescence-assay-for-anti-cardiolipin-and-anti-beta2glycoprotein-i-antibodies-detection-in-a-cohort-of-400-clinically-characterized-consecutive-routine-samples/

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