ANA Testing: What should we know about the methods, indication and interpretation?

Abstract

AbstractThough ANA is a common test requested in several settings, one may not be aware of the potential traps for interpretation. Nowadays, there is a trend for autoantibodies diagnostics to move from traditional time honored manual methods to high throughput automated platforms. Nevertheless, the clinical significance and assay performance characteristics may be different from those “historical” methods. Though indirect immunofluorescence is the gold standard method for ANA tests, different laboratories vary in the slides (from different cell lines and commercial source, e.g., Hep 2, Hep 2000, etc.), screening dilutions, terminology, reporting format and expertise. Hence, discrepancy in results among different laboratories is not uncommon and could be confusing. Knowing the assay characteristic and limitations helps proper results interpretation and facilitate patient’s management. Indeed, the titer and pattern by indirect immunofluorescence do provide valuable information in screening patients. In particular, DFS pattern with the associated anti-DFS70 antibodies has been shown to have a role to risk stratify cases referred for suspected autoimmune rheumatic disease.