Myositis-specific Antibody Testing: Methods Matter!
Lisa Peterson1, Thomas Martins2, Arevik Ghazaryan3, Merina Toninelli1, Leo Lin3, Dorota Lebiedz-Odrobina4, Tammy Smith5
1ARUP Laboratories, 2ARUP Institute of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, 3Pathology, 4Rheumatology, University of Utah, 5Imaging and Neurosciences Center
Objective:

Evaluate the recently developed particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) assay for the detection of MSA in comparison to line immunoblot assay (LIA), multiplex bead assay (MBA), and/or immunoprecipitation (IP).

Background:

Myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) represent important diagnostic tools for people with inflammatory muscle disease. Variability in testing methods between labs can result in challenges for clinicians interpreting these results. IP remains the gold standard, but other assays offer antigen-specific testing with simplified laboratory methods.

Design/Methods:

Myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) represent important diagnostic tools for people with inflammatory muscle disease. Variability in testing methods between labs can result in challenges for clinicians interpreting these results. IP remains the gold standard, but other assays offer antigen-specific testing with simplified laboratory methods.

Results:

We report on the frequency of detection of MSA in a reference laboratory setting, including the agreement between PMAT, IP, LIA, and/or MBA. We describe the clinical characteristics of University of Utah patients positive for MSA using these methods.

Conclusions:

We report on the frequency of detection of MSA in a reference laboratory setting, including the agreement between PMAT, IP, LIA, and/or MBA. We describe the clinical characteristics of University of Utah patients positive for MSA using these methods.

Generative AI Usage
No, did not use generative AI in the drafting or editing in this abstract.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.