Download PDF
Aktuelle Rheumatologie 2014; 39(01): 49-57
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1358737
Übersichtsarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Labordiagnostik bei Kollagenosen und Vaskulitiden

Laboratory Diagnostics of Connective Tissue Diseases and Vasculitides
R. Mierau
1   Rheumaklinik Aachen, Labor, Aachen
,
E. Csernok
2   Rheumaklinik Bad Bramstedt, Labor, Bad Bramstedt
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 January 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Kollagenosen und Vaskulitiden sind chronisch-entzündliche Systemerkrankungen mit Beteiligung des Immunsystems. Bei allen Kollagenosen und einigen wichtigen primären Vaskulitiden zeigt sich die Immun-Komponente vor allem in der Assoziation mit charakteristischen Autoantikörpern. Der Beitrag des Labors in der Diagnostik dieser Erkrankungen besteht daher – neben entzündungsdiagnostischen, hämatologischen, urinanalytischen, klinisch-chemischen, cytologischen und histologischen Untersuchungen – vor allem in der Bestimmung diagnostisch richtungsweisender Autoantikörper. Grundstein der Labordiagnostik ist dabei der Nachweis von antinukleären Antikörpern (ANA) bzw. Anti-Neutrophilen Cytoplasmatischen Antikörpern (ANCA). In der Regel wird stufenweise ein globaler Immunfluoreszenztest auf zellulärem Substrat (HEp-2-Zellen bzw. humane neutrophile Granulocyten) kombiniert mit spezifischen Bindungstests zur Identifikation der für die jeweiligen Erkrankungen typischen Antikörper-Spezifitäten. Der Nachweis dieser Autoantikörper unterstützt Diagnose-Sicherung oder -Ausschluss, Sub-Spezifizierung der Erkrankungs-Entitäten, Prognose und – seltener – die Verlaufsbeobachtung.

Abstract

Connective tissue diseases and vasculitides are chronic inflammatory systemic diseases in which the immune system is involved. In all connective tissue diseases and some important primary vas­culitides the immunological component becomes manifest in characteristic autoantibodies. Besides analyses of inflammatory, haematological, urine analytical, chemical, cytological and histological parameters, the laboratory therefore mainly contributes to diagnostics of these diseases by measuring diagnostically useful autoantibodies, based on antinuclear antibodies (ANA) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Usually this is accomplished by stepwise combination of a global immunofluorescence assay with cellular substrates (HEp-2 cells or human neutrophils) and specific binding assays to identify the antibody specificities typical for the disease in question. Detection of these autoantibodies supports confirmation or exclusion of the diagnosis, sub-typing of disease entities, prognosis and – less often – longitudinal observation.

Schlüsselwörter

Kollagenosen - Vaskulitis - Autoantikörper - antinukleäre Antikörper - ANCA

Key words

connective tissue disease - vasculitis - autoantibodies - antinuclear antibodies - ANCA
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Sack U, Conrad K, Csernok E et al. Autoantikörpernachweis mittels indirekter Immunfluoreszenz an HEp-2-Zellen. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2009; 134: 1278-1282
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Meroni PL, Schur PH. ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 1420-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nossent H, Rekvig OP, Limburg PC et al. Antinuclear antibody screening in this new millennium: farewell to the microscope?. Scand J Rheumatol 2001; 30: 123-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Maguire GA, Ginawi A, Lee J et al. Clinical utility of ANA measured by ELISA compared with ANA measured by immunofluorescence. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48: 1013-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fritzler MJ. The antinuclear antibody test: Last or lasting gasp?. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 19-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mariz HA, Sato EI, Barbosa SH et al. Pattern on the antinuclear antibody-HEp-2 test is a critical parameter for discriminating antinuclear antibody-positive healthy individuals and patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 191-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mahler M, Parker T, Peebles CL et al. Anti-DFS70/LEDGF Antibodies Are More Prevalent in Healthy Individuals Compared to Patients with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases. J Rheumatol 2012; 39: 2104-2110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Voigt J, Krause C, Rohwäder E et al. Automated indirect immunofluorescence evaluation of antinuclear autoantibodies on HEp-2 cells. Clin Dev Immunol 2012; 2012: 651058
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Willitzki A, Hiemann R, Peters V et al. New platform technology for comprehensive serological diagnostics of autoimmune diseases. Clin Dev Immunol 2012; 2012: 284740
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tan EM, Cohen AS, Fries JF et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982; 25: 1271-1277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1725
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Petri M, Orbai AM, Alarcon GS et al. Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 2677-2686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Font J, Cervera R, Ramos-Casals M et al. Clusters of clinical and immunologic features in systemic lupus erythematosus: analysis of 600 patients from a single center. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2004; 33: 217-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hoffman IEA, Peene I, Meheus L et al. Specific antinuclear antibodies are associated with clinical features in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 1155-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Buyon JP. Autoantibodies reactive with Ro(SSA) and La(SSB) and pregnancy. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 12-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Arbuckle MR, McClain MT, Rubertone MV et al. Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heinlen LD, Ritterhouse LL, McClain MT et al. Ribosomal P autoantibodies are present before SLE onset and are directed against non-C-terminal peptides. J Mol Med 2010; 88: 719-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Smeenk R, Brinkman K, van den Brink H et al. Antibodies to DNA in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Their role in the diagnosis, the follow-up and the pathogenesis of the disease. Clin Rheumatol 1990; 9: 100-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vitali C, Bombardieri S, Jonsson R et al. Classification criteria for Sjogren’s syndrome: a revised version of the European criteria proposed by the American-European Consensus Group. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 554-558
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Yoshimi R, Ueda A, Ozato K et al. Clinical and pathological roles of Ro/SSA autoantibody system. Clin Dev Immunol 2012; 2012: 606195
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Witte T. Pathogenese und Diagnostik des Sjögren-Syndroms. Z Rheumatol 2010; 69: 50-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mierau R, Moinzadeh P, Riemekasten G et al. Frequency of disease-associated and other nuclear autoantibodies in patients of the German network for systemic scleroderma: correlation with characteristic clinical features. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: R172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Masi AT, Rodnan GP, Medsger TA et al. Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23: 581-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 LeRoy EC, Medsger TA. Criteria for the classification of early Systemic Sclerosis. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 1573-1576
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fransen J, Johnson SR, van den Hoogen FHJ et al. Items for developing revised classification criteria in systemic sclerosis: Results of a consensus exercise. Arthritis Care Res 2012; 64: 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nihtyanova SI, Denton CP. Autoantibodies as predictive tools in systemic sclerosis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2010; 6: 112-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dick T, Mierau R, Bartz-Bazzanella P et al. Coexistence of anti-topoisomerase 1 and anti-centromere antibodies in patients with systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 121-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Steen VD. The many faces of scleroderma. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2008; 34: 1-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mierau R, Genth E. Sklerodermie-assoziierte Autoantikörper – klinische und diagnostische Relevanz. Z Rheumatol 2006; 65: 279-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Svegliati Baroni S, Santillo M, Bevilacqua F et al. Stimulatory autoantibodies to the PDGF receptor in systemic sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2667-2676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dragun D, Distler JH, Riemekasten G et al. Stimulatory autoantibodies to platelet-derived growth factor receptors in systemic sclerosis: What functional autoimmunity could learn from receptor biology. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60: 907-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Riemekasten G, Philippe A, Nather M et al. Involvement of functional autoantibodies against vascular receptors in systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 530-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bohan A, Peter JB. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (first of two parts). N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 344-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Targoff IN. Laboratory testing in the diagnosis and management of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2002; 28: 859-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gunawardena H, Betteridge ZE, McHugh NJ. Myositis-specific autoantibodies: their clinical and pathogenic significance in disease expression. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48: 607-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Trallero-Araguas E, Rodrigo-Pendas JA, Selva-O’Callaghan A et al. Usefulness of anti-p155 autoantibody for diagnosing cancer-associated dermatomyositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 523-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mammen AL, Chung T, Christopher-Stine L et al. Autoantibodies against 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase in patients with statin-associated autoimmune myopathy. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 713-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cappelli S, Bellando-Randone S, Martinovic D et al. “To be or not to be,” ten years after: evidence for mixed connective tissue disease as a distinct entity. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012; 41: 589-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Love LA, Leff RL, Fraser DD et al. A new approach to the classification of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: myositis-specific autoantibodies define useful homogeneous patient groups. Medicine 1991; 70: 360-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Fries JF, Hunder GG, Bloch DA et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of vasculitis. Summary. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33: 1135-1136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jennette JC, Falk RJ, Andrassy K et al. Nomenclature of systemic vasculitides. Proposal of an international consensus conference. Arthritis Rheum 1994; 37: 187-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Jennette JC, Falk RJ, Bacon PA et al. 2012 revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lyons PA, Rayner TF, Trivedi S et al. Genetically distinct subsets within ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 214-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Davies DJ, Moran JE, Niall JF et al. Segmental necrotising glomerulonephritis with antineutrophil antibody: possible arbovirus aetiology?. Brit Med J 1982; 285: 606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 van der Woude FJ, Rasmussen N, Lobatto S et al. Autoantibodies against neutrophils and monocytes: tool for diagnosis and marker of disease activity in Wegener’s granulomatosis. Lancet 1985; 1: 425-429
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Csernok E, Lamprecht P, Gross WL. Diagnostic significance of ANCA in vasculitis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2006; 2: 174-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Savige J, Gillis D, Benson E et al. International consensus statement on testing and reporting of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 111: 507-513
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Holle JU, Herrmann K, Gross WL et al. Comparative analysis of different commercial ELISA systems for the detection of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibodies in ANCA-associated vasculitides. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012; 30: S66-S69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Arnold DF, Timms A, Luqmani R et al. Does a gating policy for ANCA overlook patients with ANCA associated vasculitis? An audit of 263 patients. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 678-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Tomasson G, Grayson PC, Mahr AD et al. Value of ANCA measurements during remission to predict a relapse of ANCA-associated vasculitis – a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51: 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Holle JU, Csernok E, Gross WL. Non-ANCA-associated vasculitides. In: Shoenfeld Y, Meroni PL. eds. The General Practice Guide to Autoimmune Diseases. Lengerich: Papst Science Publishers; 2012: 103-116
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Bosch X, Lopez-Soto A, Mirapeix E et al. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated alveolar capillaritis in patients presenting with pulmonary hemorrhage. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994; 118: 517-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Ferri C, Mascia MT. Cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2006; 18: 54-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar