Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Lupus / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ANA: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Backhand - 22 Jan 2005 16:58 GMT
My 7 yo daughter has just had a positive ANA screening, yet titer
below detectable limits. No info as to the pattern of the positive
result. Only other seemingly applicable tests done on these samples
were sedimentation rate, rheumatoid factor, lyme and EBV, all negative
or very low.

Symptoms are (I think) minor. Occasional joint pain (nothing severe -
again my opinion), occasional minor fatigue, a single feinting
incident.

The kid grows in amazing spurts, sometime 1.5 inches or so in a 3
month period.

Is the qualitative ANA screen prone to giving a positive when there
are no detectable limits of antibodies present? Is the qualitative ANA
method able to detect the presence of antibodies that the quantitative
is only able to report as <=1:40? Finally, it seems the quantitative
threshold of 1:40 (or :80) seems to be the defining level of
antibodies as a 'prbolem', is it considered to having a titer of
<=1:40 as being negative despite the positive qualitative test?

Rheumatologist visit in the works.

Thanks.
Nicole H - 23 Jan 2005 07:41 GMT
Explanation of how the ANA titer is obtained
I don't understand how the titer could be positive but below detectable
limites... doesn't make sense to me.  The sample needs to be diluted or it
doesn't... dilution determines the titer.

Anti-Nuclear Antibodies (ANA) are antibodies which react with nuclear
components of cells. Among the nuclear antigens to which antibodies react
are DNA, RNA, nucleoli, histones and non-histone proteins.
Found in patients with a variety of diseases, ANAs also occur in low titers
in about 5% of the normal population, with higher prevalence in the elderly.
Most patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have positive
ANAs, usually of high titer (1:160 or greater). ANAs often appear also in
other rheumatic diseases, and occasionally in a variety of other conditions.
If a positive ANA is present, further testing may be indicated to identify
the antibody present. Since specific anti-nuclear antibodies occur in
various diseases, follow-up testing may be indicated, depending upon the ANA
titer, the clinical suspicion and the pattern of fluorescence in the ANA
test. For example, a high titer ANA speckled pattern may be associated with
antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENA). The ENA antibody test may
be helpful if connective tissue diseases are suspected, and aid in
differentiation between various diseases in this category.
By ordering the ANA Reflexive Panel, follow-up tests (DNA-Binding and ENA
Screen/Identification) are performed on positive samples, and the test for
anti-SSA antibodies is also done. For a listing of antibodies with ANA
patterns, disease associations, and suggested tests to order, see the above
chart.

METHOD DESCRIPTION:
Indirect immunofluorescence is the method used to screen for ANA. All
samples are tested on two substrates: HEp-2 tissue culture cells (with
enlarged nuclei and numerous dividing cells), and rat liver tissue, which
has been the substrate classically used for ANA testing. The patterns of
fluorescence (homogeneous, speckled, nucleolar, rim or centromere) are
reported from both cell types. The titer is reported on rat liver tissue.
The screen on rat liver is performed at a dilution of 1:40, and positives
titered to 1:640. Further titering on rat liver or HEp-2 cells will be done
at the physician's request.

REFERENCE RANGE: Age 40 yrs=1:40 or Neg. Age >40 yrs=1:80 or Neg.
About 5% of a normal reference population has a positive ANA test. Most of
these have only low ANA titers, i.e. 1:40. A higher prevalence of positive
ANA tests is seen in older, apparently normal populations, especially in
females. About 15% of women over age 50 have positive ANA tests. Most of
these are positive at low titers (1:40), but some older women have ANA
titers as high as 1:160 .

> My 7 yo daughter has just had a positive ANA screening, yet titer
> below detectable limits. No info as to the pattern of the positive
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Backhand - 23 Jan 2005 16:31 GMT
On or about Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:41:42 GMT someone/thing calling
him/her/itself "Nicole H" <crimsonshedemonREMOVE@hotmail.com> inked
the following:

>Explanation of how the ANA titer is obtained
>I don't understand how the titer could be positive but below detectable
>limites... doesn't make sense to me.  The sample needs to be diluted or it
>doesn't... dilution determines the titer.

I don't know if there are two different methods being employed - 1
using fluorescence to qualitatively analyze the sample and then a
second (different) method to actually determine the concentration of
antibodies

or

2 - The same fluorescence method is used twice, first the qualitative
one and then a single dilution 40 fold and a reassessment. If this is
the case then that *could* explain a positive indication with a report
of <= 1:40 in concentration.

But I am not certain of the exact methodology - why is 1:40 the lowest
number? Is it  because there is a second method being employed that
cannot report concentrations lower than corresponding to this dilution
factor or is it simply the same method being used a second time and
for some reason the very first step is a 40 fold dilution instead of
some other number, like 10?

The report states "ANA SCREEN - POSITIVE" and "ANTINUCLEAR ANTIBODIES
<1:40". There is some (apparent) boilerplate about a positive
'ANA-EIA" coupled with a negative "ANA-IFA"....

It appears that the test was strictly IFA, the positive is just
reported as such, 'positive', and the 'follow-up' as a titer, not a
number near 1 as is EIA.

Quest (the lab) states that they report the pattern on all positives
with the titer as an optional follow up (which was done). Why there is
no pattern report I don't know.

This report leaves a lot to be desired, it is very confusing, for this
and other reasons not discussed here. Really poor IMHO.
Nicole H - 23 Jan 2005 22:42 GMT
Yes 1:40 is the lowest titer.  That's one single dilution.  The titer
doubles with each dilution (1:80, 1:160, 1:320, etc)  that's how those
numbers can really get up there.
The fluorescence is used to observe the cells under the microscope....
depending on how the cells look, mean different things.... mine are always
speckled.

I think if if it says <1:40... that means there were ANA cells, but upon
dilution, no more... so they were there, but after dilution (the first
dilution) no more.

I too think Quest Lab leaves a lot to be desired.
HTH
Nicole
Backhand - 24 Jan 2005 00:04 GMT
On or about Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:42:55 GMT someone/thing calling
him/her/itself "Nicole H" <crimsonshedemonREMOVE@hotmail.com> inked
the following:

>Yes 1:40 is the lowest titer.  That's one single dilution.  The titer
>doubles with each dilution (1:80, 1:160, 1:320, etc)  that's how those
>numbers can really get up there.

[...]

>I think if if it says <1:40... that means there were ANA cells, but upon
>dilution, no more... so they were there, but after dilution (the first
>dilution) no more.

As I read and learn, the feeling I am getting is that most labs as
standard procedure take a sample and immediately dilute it 40 fold
before doing the first ANA screening. This is because (as I gather)
that just about all undiluted samples will give the cellular
fluorescence and, since it has been determined from doing this a bunch
of times, that 1:40 is a good threshold for which to exclude the
'background' fluorescence 'clutter', the 1:40 is the preferred
starting point.

Having said all that, assuming Quest does the same and also assuming
that the same assaying methods were used, how can they report a
positive ana and yet a titer of <= 1:40?

Something isn't right here, my ignorance of the science probably
contributing to the problem as well as my chemistry degree, making me
think I know everything.

An interesting talk with the medicos tomorrow, just the pediatrician
GP though. If he can shed any IFA enlightenment I will sure pass it
along. Rheumatologist isn't for another week.
Backhand - 24 Jan 2005 00:13 GMT
I forgot to include an interesting link describing the ratings and
some methodologies:

http://www.aacc.org/cln/pdf/july00feat.pdf
Backhand - 28 Jan 2005 18:00 GMT
On or about Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:42:55 GMT someone/thing calling
him/her/itself "Nicole H" <crimsonshedemonREMOVE@hotmail.com> inked
the following:

>I too think Quest Lab leaves a lot to be desired.

Ok, pediatrician had no idea as to the testing, as expected. Called
Quest and got to the point.

Turns out that the initial test was EIA and deemed positive(although
no number reported as is done, as I've read, with the method), and a
follow up IFA as negative.

Of course NOTHING on the report states that it was EIA as positive nor
do the report codes print so that you can cross reference it against
their report listing on their web site.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.