Diagnostic performance of particle-based multi-analyte technology compared to indirect immunofluorescence in screening for anti-nuclear antibodies in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases
Authors' conclusion
While the diagnostic sensitivity of this novel method is lower than that of HEp-2 IIF, its high specificity is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of patients affected by ARD and improves their stratification into specific disease subsets.
Study context
- Population
- Serum samples from autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) patients (SLE, Sjögren's syndrome, SSc, idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, UCTD) and controls (healthy donors, other autoimmune/inflammatory disorders, infections), 13 Italian rheumatology centres782 ARD samples
- Participants
- 1,241 participants
- Comparison
- Aptiva/PMAT vs HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for ANA screening
- Outcome
- Diagnostic performance for ANA detection in ARD
Methodological detailsmulticentre, 13 Italian rheumatology centres
- Multicentre
- 13 Italian rheumatology centres
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic performance, overall ARD population
| Test or model | Sensitivity | Specificity | LR for positive results |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEp-2 IIF | 92.8% | 54.0% | 2.08 |
| Aptiva/PMAT | 82.6% | 77.9% | 3.81 |
Sensitivity
HEp-2 IIF92.8%
Aptiva/PMAT82.6%
Specificity
HEp-2 IIF54.0%
Aptiva/PMAT77.9%
LR for positive results
HEp-2 IIF2.08
Aptiva/PMAT3.81
- LR for positive results, double-positive samples (both methods)
- 6.31
Further findings
Sensitivity in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (subgroup)
Sensitivity
Original publication
Diagnostic performance of particle-based multi-analyte technology compared to indirect immunofluorescence in screening for anti-nuclear antibodies in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. Published 22 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →