Full Papers
An Italian nationwide survey on the evolution of autoantibody diagnostics in autoimmune rheumatic diseases
T. Carbone1, M. Infantino2, A. Antico3, B. Porcelli4, D. Villalta5, V. Pafundi6, N. Bizzaro7
- Laboratorio di Immunopatologia, Azienda Ospedaliera Regionale San Carlo, Potenza, Italy. teresa.carbone@ospedalesancarlo.it
- Laboratorio Immunologia Allergologia, Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio, Firenze, Italy.
- Laboratorio Analisi, Ospedale Ca' Foncello, Treviso, Italy.
- Dipartimento Biotecnologie Mediche, Università degli Studi di Siena, and Laboratorio Patologia Clinica, Policlinico S. Maria alle Scotte, AOU Senese, Siena, Italy.
- Immunologia e Allergologia, Ospedale S. Maria degli Angeli, Pordenone, Italy.
- Laboratorio di Immunopatologia, Azienda Ospedaliera Regionale San Carlo, Potenza, Italy.
- Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale San Antonio, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Italy.
CER16545
2023 Vol.41, N°11
PI 2277, PF 2285
Full Papers
PMID: 37470233 [PubMed]
Received: 28/01/2023
Accepted : 22/05/2023
In Press: 19/07/2023
Published: 14/11/2023
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
The advent of new technologies and the discovery of new antigenic targets of autoantibodies has led to significant changes in autoimmune diagnostics worldwide. To address the extent to which autoimmunology laboratories adhere to such innovation in testing and reporting practices, the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine launched a national survey to assess the current status of autoimmune diagnostics and to provide direction for further harmonisation.
METHODS:
A questionnaire covering topics related to the diagnosis of autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases was distributed to 152 Italian autoimmunology laboratories. The 59 closed-answer questions were subdivided into four main sections: 1. the setting (university, hospital or private laboratory) and the number of tests carried out; 2. the technologies used and their level of automation; 3. the analytical phase (antibody tests and methods), including awareness of the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) initiative; 4. reporting of results and clinician relations.
RESULTS:
A total of 121 laboratories (79.6%) responded to the survey (15% universities, 70 hospitals, and 15% private laboratories). Indirect immunofluorescence is used by 94.8% of respondents, chemiluminescence by 78.4%, fluoro-immuno-enzymatic assays by 67.5%, immunodot by 52.6%, line-immunoassay by 47.4%, addressable laser bead immunoassay by 10.3% and radioimmunological methods by 10.2%. The great majority of respondents implemented complete automation of the listed methodologies. 65% of participants state that they add an interpretative comment in the report. 45% of participants enjoy a collaborative relationship with clinicians; counselling activities are provided by almost half of participants.
CONCLUSIONS:
Survey results indicated that almost all respondent laboratories have broadened their antibody panel and that high-throughput technologies have been widely introduced. Gaps identified by the survey include a still incomplete compliance with guidelines in antibody profiles (e.g. in antiphospholipid syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis and reporting of test results. Awareness of these differences provides insights that may further contribute to achieving harmonisation in autoimmune diagnostics.
