Comparison of two extractable nuclear antigen testing algorithms : ALBIA versus ELISA/line immunoassay

Extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) antibody testing is often requested in patients with suspected connective tissue diseases. Most laboratories in Australia use a two step process involving a high sensitivity screening assay followed by a high specificity confirmation test. Multiplexing technology with Addressable Laser Bead Immunoassay (e.g., FIDIS) offers simultaneous detection of multiple antibody specificities, allowing a single step screening and confirmation. We compared our current diagnostic laboratory testing algorithm [Organtec ELISA screen / Euroimmun line immunoassay (LIA) confirmation] and the FIDIS Connective Profile. A total of 529 samples (443 consecutive + 86 known autoantibody positivity) were run through both algorithms, and 479 samples (90.5%) were concordant. The same autoantibody profile was detected in 100 samples (18.9%) and 379 were concordant negative samples (71.6%). The 50 discordant samples (9.5%) were subdivided into ‘likely FIDIS or current method correct’ or ‘unresolved’ based on ancillary data. ‘Unresolved’ samples (n = 25) were subclassified into ‘potentially’ versus ‘potentially not’ clinically significant based on the change to clinical interpretation. Only nine samples (1.7%) were deemed to be ‘potentially clinically significant’. Overall, we found that the FIDIS Connective Profile ENA kit is non-inferior to the current ELISA screen/LIA characterisation. Reagent and capital costs may be limiting factors in using the FIDIS, but potential benefits include a single step analysis and simultaneous detection of dsDNA antibodies

Gastric cancer screening in common variable immunodeficiency

Individuals with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) have an increased risk of gastric cancer, and gastrointestinal lymphoma, yet screening for premalignant gastric lesions is rarely offered routinely to these patients. Proposed screening protocols are not widely accepted and are based on gastric cancer risk factors that are not applicable to all CVID patients. Fifty-two CVID patients were recruited for screening gastroscopy irrespective of symptoms or blood results and were compared to 40 controls presenting for gastroscopy for other clinical indications. Overall, 34% of CVID patients had intestinal metaplasia (IM), atrophic gastritis or moderate to severe non-atrophic gastritis, which can increase the risk of gastric cancer, compared to 7.5% of controls (p < 0.01). Focal nodular lymphoid hyperplasia, a precursor lesion for gastrointestinal lymphoma, was seen in eight CVID patients (16%), one of whom was diagnosed with gastrointestinal lymphoma on the same endoscopy. High-risk gastric pathology was associated with increased time since diagnosis of CVID, smoking, Helicobacter pylori, a low-serum pepsinogen I concentration, and diarrhea, but not pepsinogen I/II ratio, iron studies, vitamin B12 levels or upper gastrointestinal symptoms. There was a lower rate of detection of IM when fewer biopsies were taken, and IM and gastric atrophy were rarely predicted by the endoscopist macroscopically, highlighting the need for standardized biopsy protocols. The prevalence of premalignant gastric lesions in patients with CVID highlights the need for routine gastric screening. We propose a novel gastric screening protocol to detect early premalignant lesions and reduce the risk of gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma in these patients