Comparison of different kits in the detection of autoantibodies to cardiolipin and ß2-glycoprotein 1: comment on the article by Audrain et al.

A. Ambrozic, T. Kveder, B. Bozic and B. Rozman

Department of Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Correspondence to: B. Bozic, Vodnikova 62, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: borut.bozic{at}guest.arnes.si

SIR, We read with interest the article by Audrain et al [1]. Unfortunately, they missed the opportunity to make further steps in approaching the complexity of the standardization procedure.

The authors start with a misleading definition of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). They mention the heterogeneous nature of aPL and diseases frequently associated with aPL, but not with clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). We would like to emphasize that antibodies binding to the cofactors are predominantly associated with clinical manifestations of APS, whilst aPL not associated with APS mostly bind directly to phospholipids.

The classical anticardiolipin (aCL) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) employing bovine serum as the source of antigen is well established [2]. In the past, many modifications of the aCL ELISA have been described. The different results obtained with various kits in the study by Audrian et al. might have been a consequence of the manufacturers’ modifications of the classical aCL ELISA.

We note the lack of comment on the quite low agreement among the kits’ results for aCL detection in the different groups of patients defined by the authors, which was most probably a consequence of significant aCL heterogeneity. The concordance among the kits’ results was greater in the group of patients with primary APS, indicating lower heterogeneity of aCL in this group. However, differences among the kits could not be clarified by antibody properties, as important details of the assays were not presented in the article.

Anti-ß2-glycoprotein 1 (anti-ß2GP1) was not introduced as a heterogeneous group of antibodies; however, substantial differences in epitopic specificity and other properties of anti-ß2GP1 have been reported [3]. We have presented evidence for a specific subset of anti-ß2GP1 not associated with APS and differing considerably from anti-ß2GP1 in APS [4]. The influence of many assay variables on test results has also been demonstrated [5].

We agree with the authors that the weak agreement among the kits may be explained partly by different cut-offs. The statistical calculation of a cut-off (percentiles, standard deviations, multiples of the mean) can also result in different cut-offs for a single set of data. The authors should have included in the evaluation of kits enough sera from healthy donors for an appropriate definition of the cut-off in all kits for the same sera and the same statistical method. Such a procedure would have given additional strength to the data presented in the article, revealing real differences in the cut-offs among the kits and pointing also to eventual discrepancies between their cut-offs and the manufacturers’.

The authors state that they could not establish parametric correlations among the kits due to the heterogeneity of the reported results, and expressed the need for an international reference serum. Selecting one serum or a few reference sera from their own positive samples would make an experimental step forward. Setting the calibration curve based on dilutions of such sera should be done in each assay. Such a procedure would give a satisfactory approximation of a quantitative comparison of the kits. A monoclonal IgG anti-ß2GP1 (HCAL) has already been proposed as the calibrator in assays for detection of aCL and anti-ß2GP1 [6]. Several papers have been published by our group in which HCAL and monoclonal IgM anti-ß2GP1 (EY2C9) were employed as standards [5, 7, 8]. We also presented cut-off values for different age groups defined for aCL and anti-ß2GP1 on the basis of these monoclonal antibodies [9, 10]. With the widespread use of the same monoclonal antibodies in research work, we could solve one of the main problems in the standardization of aCL and anti-ß2GP1 ELISA. If the authors had performed their experiments with a negative control group and monoclonal antibodies, they could have expressed the analytical sensitivity of each kit exactly as the concentration of monoclonal antibodies giving the signal equivalent to the cut-off [9, 10].

We cannot agree with defining the results of the aCL ELISA only as positive when calculating operating characteristics (clinical specificity, clinical sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values), as the diagnostic meaning of aCL correlates with the antibody level. According to the Sapporo criteria, only medium or high positive values are diagnostic for APS. The authors included low-positive aCL sera in the group of positives, which were subsequently used for the calculation of the operating characteristics. The operating characteristics in groups III and IV should have been calculated on the basis of clinical manifestations and not the diagnosis of established APS.

Any cut-off value is a reflection of the analytical sensitivity and of decisions about clinically relevant results. The evaluation of kits on the basis of clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity, considered as ‘positives’ according to the manufacturers’ cut-offs, is inappropriate and such figures should be presented only as illustrations. Clinical specificity and clinical sensitivity are two mutually dependent variables and comparison of the kits’ results would have been more appropriate if clinical specificity had been compared at the same clinical sensitivity level and vice versa.

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Audrain MA, Colonna F, Morio F, Hamidou MA, Muller JY. Comparison of different kits in the detection of autoantibodies to cardiolipin and beta2glycoprotein 1. Rheumatology 2004;43:181–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Loizou S, McCrea JD, Rudge AC, Reynolds R, Boyle CC, Harris EN. Measurement of anti-cardiolipin antibodies by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA): standardization and quantitation of results. Clin Exp Immunol 1985;62:738–45.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Li Z, Krilis SA. Anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies and the antiphospholipid syndrome. Autoimmun Rev 2003;2:229–34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  4. Ambrozic A, Avicin T, Ichikawa K et al. Anti-beta(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Immunol 2002;14:823–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Ambrozic A, Kveder T, Ichikawa K et al. Heterogenous behaviour of anti-beta2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies on different ‘high binding’ microtiter plates. Arthritis Res 2001;3:A28.
  6. Ichikawa K, Tsutsumi A, Atsumi T et al. A chimeric antibody with the human gamma1 constant region as a putative standard for assays to detect IgG beta2-glycoprotein I-dependent anticardiolipin and anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:2461–70.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  7. Ambrozic A, Bozic B, Hojnik M, Kveder T, Rozman B. Antiphospholipid antibodies and rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:85–6.[Free Full Text]
  8. Avcin T, Ambrozic A, Bozic B, Accetto M, Kveder T, Rozman B. Estimation of anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies and lupus anticoagulant in a prospective longitudinal study of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002;20:101–8.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Avcin T, Ambrozic A, Kuhar M, Kveder T, Rozman B. Anticardiolipin and anti-beta(2) glycoprotein I antibodies in sera of 61 apparently healthy children at regular preventive visits. Rheumatology 2001;40:565–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Cucnik S, Ambrozic A, Bozic B, Skitek M, Kveder T. Anti-beta2-glycoprotein I ELISA: methodology, determination of cut-off values in 434 healthy Caucasians and evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as possible international standards. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000;38:777–83.[ISI][Medline]
Accepted 29 April 2004





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Ambrozic, A.
Articles by Rozman, B.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Ambrozic, A.
Articles by Rozman, B.
Related Collections
Other Rheumatology