Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that Ro60 and Ro52 have different clinical implications, and anti-Ro52 antibodies are an independent serum marker of systemic autoimmune diseases, including Sjögren's syndrome. Many different assays have been adopted to detect anti-Sjögren's syndrome antigen A (SSA)/Ro antibodies, while to date no specific approach has been recommended as optimal for anti-SSA/Ro antibody testing. Herein, we performed a multi-center study to explore the current clinical utility of different strategies for anti-SSA/Ro antibody testing in China.
Methods: Twenty-one tertiary care centers were included in this questionnaire-based study. The self-administered questionnaire mainly includes testing methods for anti-SSA/Ro antibodies, reporting system of results, and interpretation of results by clinicians.
Results: Six different methods were applied to detect anti-SSA/Ro antibodies in the 21 centers. Line immunoassay (eight different commercial kits) was the most frequently adopted method (21/21, 100%), with different cutoff values and strategies for intensity stratification. There were two reporting systems: One was reported as "anti-SSA antibodies" and "anti-Ro52 antibodies" (12/21, 57%), while the other was "anti-SSA/Ro60 antibodies" and "anti-SSA/Ro52 antibodies" (9/21, 43%). Notably, six centers (29%) considered either positive anti-Ro60 or anti-Ro52 antibodies as positive anti-SSA antibodies, all of which adopted the latter reporting system.
Conclusion: Significant variabilities existed among anti-SSA/Ro assays. Nearly 30% of centers misinterpreted the definition of positive anti-SSA antibodies, which may be attributed to the confusing reporting systems of line immunoassay. Therefore, we advocate standardization of the nomenclature of anti-SSA/Ro antibodies, changing the "anti-SSA/Ro52" label in favor of the "anti-Ro52" antibodies for a clear designation.
Keywords: Sjögren's syndrome; anti-Ro52 antibodies; anti-Ro60 antibodies; anti-SSA/Ro antibodies; detection assay; reporting system.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.