Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2014; 34(04): 378-385
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390386
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Laboratory Testing in Neurorheumatology

Meghan K. Hickey
1   Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Mandakolathur Murali
2   Director, Clinical Immunology Laboratory, Departments of Medicine and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 November 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Laboratory testing in cases of neuro-rheumatologic disease can be daunting, and the results can be difficult to interpret if not placed in the correct clinical context. To best help our patients and also to practice in a cost-effective environment, laboratory testing must be performed in a logical manner, guided by symptoms and clinical judgment. The authors discuss the different laboratory tests used in the diagnosis and evaluation of rheumatologic diseases often encountered in the practice of neurology. It is important to understand how the tests are performed and which methods are used at your own institution. Testing should be ordered with a specific diagnosis in mind so as not to confuse the clinical picture with possible false-positive results. Through discussion of the various testing options, the authors advocate a step-wise approach to investigation.

Keywords

antinuclear antibodies - extractable nuclear antigen - rheumatoid factor - erythrocyte sedimentation rate - C-Reactive protein anti-SSA - anti-SSB - cryoglobulins - antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody - HLA-B51
 

  • References

  • 1 Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 2003; 111 (12) 1805-1812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Morley JJ, Kushner I. Serum C-reactive protein levels in disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1982; 389: 406-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vercoutere W, Thevissen K, Bombardier C, Landewé RB. Diagnostic and predictive value of acute-phase reactants in adult undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review. J Rheumatol Suppl 2011; 87: 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cantini F, Salvarani C, Olivieri I. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128 (10) 873-874
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dasgupta B, Cimmino MA, Kremers HM , et al. 2012 Provisional classification criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica: a European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64 (4) 943-954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hunder GG, Bloch DA, Michel BA , et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33 (8) 1122-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wong RL, Korn JH. Temporal arteritis without an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Case report and review of the literature. Am J Med 1986; 80 (5) 959-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Laria A, Zoli A, Bocci M, Castri F, Federico F, Ferraccioli GF. Systematic review of the literature and a case report informing biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis (GCA) with normal C-reactive protein. Clin Rheumatol 2012; 31 (9) 1389-1393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lopez-Diaz MJ, Llorca J, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Peña-Sagredo JL, Martin J, Gonzalez-Gay MA. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate is associated with the development of visual complications in biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2008; 38 (2) 116-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Farng E, Friedrich JB. Laboratory diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (5) 926-927 , quiz 928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nishimura K, Sugiyama D, Kogata Y , et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146 (11) 797-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shmerling RH, Delbanco TL. The rheumatoid factor: an analysis of clinical utility. Am J Med 1991; 91 (5) 528-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 García-Carrasco M, Ramos-Casals M, Rosas J , et al. Primary Sjögren syndrome: clinical and immunologic disease patterns in a cohort of 400 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2002; 81 (4) 270-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Newkirk MM. Rheumatoid factors: what do they tell us?. J Rheumatol 2002; 29 (10) 2034-2040
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA , et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988; 31 (3) 315-324
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ , et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62 (9) 2569-2581
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Nell VP, Machold KP, Stamm TA , et al. Autoantibody profiling as early diagnostic and prognostic tool for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (12) 1731-1736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Davids MS, Murali MR, Kuter DJ. Serum free light chain analysis. Am J Hematol 2010; 85 (10) 787-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Motyckova G, Murali M. Laboratory testing for cryoglobulins. Am J Hematol 2011; 86 (6) 500-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ramos-Casals M, Stone JH, Cid MC, Bosch X. The cryoglobulinaemias. Lancet 2012; 379 (9813) 348-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bhagat M, Sehra ST, Shahane A, Kwan M. Utility of immunologic testing in suspected rheumatologic disease. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2014; 14 (1) 405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vermeersch P, Bossuyt X. Prevalence and clinical significance of rare antinuclear antibody patterns. Autoimmun Rev 2013; 12 (10) 998-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hoffman IE, Peene I, Veys EM, De Keyser F. Detection of specific antinuclear reactivities in patients with negative anti-nuclear antibody immunofluorescence screening tests. Clin Chem 2002; 48 (12) 2171-2176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Volkmann ER, Taylor M, Ben-Artzi A. Using the antinuclear antibody test to diagnose rheumatic diseases: when does a positive test warrant further investigation?. South Med J 2012; 105 (2) 100-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bossuyt X, Luyckx A. Antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens in antinuclear antibody-negative samples. Clin Chem 2005; 51 (12) 2426-2427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bizzaro N, Villalta D, Giavarina D, Tozzoli R. Are anti-nucleosome antibodies a better diagnostic marker than anti-dsDNA antibodies for systemic lupus erythematosus? A systematic review and a study of metanalysis. Autoimmun Rev 2012; 12 (2) 97-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nifli AP, Notas G, Mamoulaki M , et al. Comparison of a multiplex, bead-based fluorescent assay and immunofluorescence methods for the detection of ANA and ANCA autoantibodies in human serum. J Immunol Methods 2006; 311 (1-2) 189-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shanmugam VK, Swistowski DR, Saddic N, Wang H, Steen VD. Comparison of indirect immunofluorescence and multiplex antinuclear antibody screening in systemic sclerosis. Clin Rheumatol 2011; 30 (10) 1363-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dahle C, Skogh T, Aberg AK, Jalal A, Olcén P. Methods of choice for diagnostic antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening: benefit of adding antigen-specific assays to immunofluorescence microscopy. J Autoimmun 2004; 22 (3) 241-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH ; American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47 (4) 434-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Myckatyn SO, Russell AS. Outcome of positive antinuclear antibodies in individuals without connective tissue disease. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (4) 736-739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Man A, Shojania K, Phoon C , et al. An evaluation of autoimmune antibody testing patterns in a Canadian health region and an evaluation of a laboratory algorithm aimed at reducing unnecessary testing. Clin Rheumatol 2013; 32 (5) 601-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bonaguri C, Melegari A, Ballabio A , et al. Italian multicentre study for application of a diagnostic algorithm in autoantibody testing for autoimmune rheumatic disease: conclusive results. Autoimmun Rev 2011; 11 (1) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tan EM, Feltkamp TE, Smolen JS , et al. Range of antinuclear antibodies in “healthy” individuals. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40 (9) 1601-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mariz HA, Sato EI, Barbosa SH, Rodrigues SH, Dellavance A, Andrade LE. 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 (1) 191-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mahler M, Fritzler MJ. The clinical significance of the dense fine speckled immunofluorescence pattern on HEp-2 cells for the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune diseases. Clin Dev Immunol 2012; 2012: 494356
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mahler M, Hanly JG, Fritzler MJ. Importance of the dense fine speckled pattern on HEp-2 cells and anti-DFS70 antibodies for the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev 2012; 11 (9) 642-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Self SE. Autoantibody testing for autoimmune disease. Clin Chest Med 2010; 31 (3) 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Craig WY, Ledue TB. The relationship between antinuclear antibody data and antibodies against extractable nuclear antigens in a large laboratory cohort. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012; 50 (3) 497-502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Katz U, Zandman-Goddard G. Drug-induced lupus: an update. Autoimmun Rev 2010; 10 (1) 46-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Berlin T, Zandman-Goddard G, Blank M , et al. Autoantibodies in nonautoimmune individuals during infections. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007; 1108: 584-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Timurağaoğlu A, Duman A, Ongüt G, Saka O, Karadoğan I. The significance of autoantibodies in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2000; 40 (1-2) 119-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Covini G, von Mühlen CA, Pacchetti S, Colombo M, Chan EK, Tan EM. Diversity of antinuclear antibody responses in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 1997; 26 (6) 1255-1265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Thomas PJ, Kaur JS, Aitcheson CT, Robinson WA, Tan EM. Antinuclear, antinucleolar, and anticytoplasmic antibodies in patients with malignant melanoma. Cancer Res 1983; 43 (3) 1372-1380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Abeles AM, Abeles M. The clinical utility of a positive antinuclear antibody test result. Am J Med 2013; 126 (4) 342-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Fauchais AL, Martel C, Gondran G , et al. Immunological profile in primary Sjögren syndrome: clinical significance, prognosis and long-term evolution to other auto-immune disease. Autoimmun Rev 2010; 9 (9) 595-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Fritzler MJ, Pauls JD, Kinsella TD, Bowen TJ. Antinuclear, anticytoplasmic, and anti-Sjogren's syndrome antigen A (SS-A/Ro) antibodies in female blood donors. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1985; 36 (1) 120-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Alexander EL, Arnett FC, Provost TT, Stevens MB. Sjögren's syndrome: association of anti-Ro(SS-A) antibodies with vasculitis, hematologic abnormalities, and serologic hyperreactivity. Ann Intern Med 1983; 98 (2) 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Migliorini P, Baldini C, Rocchi V, Bombardieri S. Anti-Sm and anti-RNP antibodies. Autoimmunity 2005; 38 (1) 47-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Jearn LH, Kim TY. Anti-Sm faces a threat to its reigning position as the marker antibody. Rheumatol Int 2011; 31 (8) 1119-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ding Y, He J, Guo JP , et al. Gender differences are associated with the clinical features of systemic lupus erythematosus. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012; 125 (14) 2477-2481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Webb R, Kelly JA, Somers EC , et al. Early disease onset is predicted by a higher genetic risk for lupus and is associated with a more severe phenotype in lupus patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70 (1) 151-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Benito-Garcia E, Schur PH, Lahita R ; American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-Sm and anti-RNP antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51 (6) 1030-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Mahler M. Sm peptides in differentiation of autoimmune diseases. Adv Clin Chem 2011; 54: 109-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Amigues JM, Cantagrel A, Abbal M, Mazieres B ; Autoimmunity Group of the Hospitals of Toulouse. Comparative study of 4 diagnosis criteria sets for mixed connective tissue disease in patients with anti-RNP antibodies. J Rheumatol 1996; 23 (12) 2055-2062
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Stone KB, Oddis CV, Fertig N , et al. Anti-Jo-1 antibody levels correlate with disease activity in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56 (9) 3125-3131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Targoff IN. Autoantibodies and their significance in myositis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2008; 10 (4) 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Mammen AL. Dermatomyositis and polymyositis: clinical presentation, autoantibodies, and pathogenesis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010; 1184: 134-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Cohen-Solal J, Diamond B. Lessons from an anti-DNA autoantibody. Mol Immunol 2011; 48 (11) 1328-1331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Ghirardello A, Villalta D, Morozzi G , et al; Forum Interdisciplinare per la Ricerca sulle Malattie Autoimmuni(FIRMA) study group. Diagnostic accuracy of currently available anti-double-stranded DNA antibody assays. An Italian multicentre study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011; 29 (1) 50-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Saigal R, Goyal LK, Agrawal A , et al. Anti-nucleosome antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: potential utility as a diagnostic tool and disease activity marker and its comparison with anti-dsDNA antibody. J Assoc Physicians India 2013; 61 (6) 372-377
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 McCloskey LJ, Christner P, Jacobs-Kosmin D , et al. Myth and reality: practical test system for the measurement of anti-DNA antibodies in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). J Clin Lab Anal 2010; 24 (2) 77-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH ; American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47 (5) 546-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Pan N, Amigues I, Lyman S , et al. A surge in anti-dsDNA titer predicts a severe lupus flare within six months. Lupus 2014; 23 (3) 293-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Pisetsky DS. Standardization of anti-DNA antibody assays. Immunol Res 2013; 56 (2-3) 420-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Li WX, Pan HF, Li LH , et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of 15 autoantibodies in patients with new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Ir J Med Sci 2010; 179 (4) 623-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Reddy P. Laboratory diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome. South Med J 2013; 106 (7) 439-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Jennette JC, Falk RJ, Bacon PA , et al. 2012 Revised international Chapel Hill consensus conference nomenclature of vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65 (1) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Birck R, Schmitt WH, Kaelsch IA, van der Woude FJ. Serial ANCA determinations for monitoring disease activity in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 47 (1) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Millet A, Pederzoli-Ribeil M, Guillevin L, Witko-Sarsat V, Mouthon L. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitides: is it time to split up the group?. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72 (8) 1273-1279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Guillevin L, Durand-Gasselin B, Cevallos R , et al. Microscopic polyangiitis: clinical and laboratory findings in eighty-five patients. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42 (3) 421-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Guilpain P, Servettaz A, Goulvestre C , et al. Pathogenic effects of antimyeloperoxidase antibodies in patients with microscopic polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56 (7) 2455-2463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Geis C, Weishaupt A, Hallermann S , et al. Stiff person syndrome-associated autoantibodies to amphiphysin mediate reduced GABAergic inhibition. Brain 2010; 133 (11) 3166-3180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Poh MQ, Simon NG, Buckland ME, Salisbury E, Watson S. Evidence of T-cell mediated neuronal injury in stiff-person syndrome with anti-amphiphysin antibodies. J Neurol Sci 2014; 337 (1-2) 235-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 de Menthon M, Lavalley MP, Maldini C, Guillevin L, Mahr A. HLA-B51/B5 and the risk of Behçet's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control genetic association studies. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61 (10) 1287-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Maldini C, Lavalley MP, Cheminant M, de Menthon M, Mahr A. Relationships of HLA-B51 or B5 genotype with Behcet's disease clinical characteristics: systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51 (5) 887-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar