Comparison of Lineblot and Immunoprecipitation Methods in the Detection of Myositis-Specific and Myositis-Associated Antibodies in Patients with Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: Consistency with Clinical Diagnoses

Background: the reference method for detection of myositis-specific and myositis-associated antibodies (MSAs and MAAs) is considered immunoprecipitation (IP), but it is routinely replaced by semi-automated methods, like lineblot (LB). Few data are available on the consistency with clinical diagnoses; thus, we aim at analysing these aspects. Methods: sixty-nine patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) were studied via LB (Myositis Antigens Profile 3 EUROLINE, Euroimmun) and IP (RNA and protein antigens). The degree of concordance between methods was calculated using Cohen’s coefficient. Results: a substantial concordance was found for anti-Ku and anti-PM/Scl and a moderate concordance was found for anti-Jo1 and anti–Mi-2, while a fair concordance was found for anti-EJ, anti-SRP, and anti-Ro52 antibodies. The concordance could not be calculated for anti-OJ, anti-PL-7, anti-PL-12, anti-NXP2, anti-TIF1ɣ, and anti-MDA5, because they were only detected with one method. Multiple MSAs were found only with LB in 2/69 sera. Anti-MDA5, TIF1ɣ, NXP2 (detected via IP), and anti-Jo1 in anti-synthetase syndrome (both LB and IP) had the best concordance with clinical diagnosis. Conclusions: LB and IP show substantial concordance for PM/Scl and Ku, and moderate concordance for Jo1 and Mi-2, with a good concordance with clinical diagnoses. IP shows a high performance for DM-associated MSAs. LB seems to be more sensitive in detecting anti-Ro52 antibodies, but it identified multiple MSAs, unlike IP.