Viewpoint On

Shiroshita A, Oda Y, Takenouchi S, Hagino N, Kataoka Y: Accuracy of Anti-GBM Antibodies in Diagnosing Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Nephrology DOI 10.1159/000518362

Laboratory testing for anti-GBM antibodies has been available (for research or clinical care) for many decades. Yet standardization across laboratories is virtually non-existent and uncertainty remains concerning the overall accuracy of the multiple assays that are used. Western blot assays are the “gold standard” but have very limited availability. Turn-around time is very important in clinical utility.

In a very scholarly and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of six studies involving 1,691 patients and 11 different anti-GBM assays, Shiroshita and colleagues have helped to clarify uncertainties concerning the accuracy of anti-GBM assays. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of these assays were 93% (95% CI 84–97) and 95% (95% CI 94–99). However, an assessment of the overall quality of the reports was low, due to design features and the possibility of bias. The ELISA methods using the COLIV alpha 3 NC domain as the substrate were the most frequently used test (55%). Not surprisingly “false negative” tests were encountered (using immunofluorescence microscopy [IF] of linear IgG deposits as the defining finding of anti-GBM disease) up to about 16%. False positive tests were less common. The lack of standardization of “cut-off” values distinguishing “positive” from “negative” results was apparent. Misclassifications may have occurred since not all of the included studies employed a “gold standard” of IF on kidney biopsy. Nevertheless, the high specificity of ELISA anti-GBM means that a diagnosis of anti-GBM disease can be based on serology alone, especially in cases with a high a priori probability of anti-GBM disease. On the other hand, the lower sensitivity of anti-GBM antibody assays, including ELISA, suggests the need for multiple testing, such as indirect immunofluorescence assays, when ELISA is negative, especially when a high a priori probability of anti-GBM antibody disease is present. The inclusion of cases of “atypical anti-GBM disease” will only accentuate the possibility of “false negative” results for anti-GBM disease. This issue was not specifically addressed in the meta-analysis.

Quoted Karger Article

Accuracy of Anti-GBM Antibodies in Diagnosing Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Related Posts

Moos RH, Solomon GF. Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory response patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Psychosom Res. 1964;8:17-28 George Freeman Solomon was born on 25th November 1931 in Freeport,…

It is well known that prevalent chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with excess morbidity and mortality compared to non-CKD. Few studies have examined this association in incident CKD….

Rasmussen AF Jr, Marsh JT, Brill NQ. Increased susceptibility to herpes simplex in mice subjected to avoidance-learning stress or restraint. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1957;96:183-189 Aaron Frederick Rasmussen Jr….