OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the results obtained from different assays for the detection of anti-Mi-2 antibodies, which are important markers in the diagnosis of DM. METHODS: The study included 82 patients (68 females/14 males), most of whom had DM (n = 57), followed by PM (n = 16) and juvenile DM (n = 9). All samples were tested using a novel particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) (Inova Diagnostics, research use only) in parallel with a line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). To assess clinical specificity for the PMAT assay, a total of 775 disease and healthy controls were tested. RESULTS: 29 samples were positive by at least one test for anti-Mi-2 antibodies. Of those, 24 were Mi-2β LIA+, five were Mi-2α LIA+ and 23 Mi-2 PMAT+. The comparison shows varying agreement between the different methods (kappa 0.27-0.77). When LIA results were used as reference for receiver operating characteristics analysis, high area under the curve values were found for both PMAT vs LIA Mi-2α and LIA Mi-2β. When analysing the results in the context of the myositis phenotype, PMAT associated closest with the DM phenotype. In the control group, 3/775 controls (all low levels) were anti-Mi-2+ resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 28.1% and 99.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, good agreement was found between LIA and PMAT for anti-Mi-2 antibodies, which is important for the standardization of autoantibodies. Anti-Mi-2β antibodies measured by PMAT tend be more highly associated with the clinical phenotype of DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richards et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: