{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.048204158790170135, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030718336483931945, 'mean_word_length': 4.864265927977839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Screening for antinuclear antibodies by enzyme immunoassay.

Indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) ia most widely used method in clin clinical laboratories to screen for autoantibodies against a wide variety of nuclear antigens. Recently, a number of antinuclear antibody (ANA) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) screens have become commercially available and claim to be an alternative method to screen for ANAs. Given the subjectivity of technical interpretation of IFA and the high number of ANA negative samples, a suitable EIA method for ANA screening would be beneficial to clinical laboratories with large samples volumes. Five ANA EIA screens were compared (Elias, Helix, Sanofi, TheraTest and Zeus) to IFA using a human epithelial cell line (HEp-2). Sera from 601 patients submitted to our reference laboratory for autoimmune testing, and from 202 normal healthy blood donors, were included in this study. Samples with discordant results between IFA and EIA were further analyzed using single antigen EIAs for SSA, SSB, Sm, RNP, Scl-70, histones, dsDNA, and ssDNA. Analyses were based on clinically significant IFA titers of > or equal to 1:160 as positive and <1:40 as negative. When compared to IFA, agreement, sensitivity and specificity for each ANA EIA screen were as follows: Elias: 87.0%, 69.5% and 97.9%; Helix: 94.6%, 90.2%, and 97.3%; Sanofi: 95.0%, 93.7%, and 95.9%; TheraTest: 95.3%, 97.7%, and 93.5%; Zeus: 87.1%, 96.2%, and 81.4%, respectively. In conclusion, screening for ANAs by EIA using several commercial assays was both sensitive and specific when compared to IFA. Moreover, the EIA is objective and much less labor intensive when screening a large number of clinical specimens. None of the EIAs were 100% sensitive and, thus, may fail to detect a few of the nonspecific ANAs that demonstrate atypical as well as classical IFA patterns. The advantages of employing these nonsubjective assays to screen out the vast majority of ANA negative sera is clear. The authors still recommend confirming titers and patterns of sera with positive EIA screens using classical IFA methods employing HEp-2 cells.