Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Lupus / January 2005
ANA: Qualitative vs. Quantitative
|
|
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.
|
|
|