Assessing the sensitivity and specificity of myositis-specific and associated autoantibodies: a sub-study from the MyoCite cohort

Abstract Objectives Myositis-specific and associated autoantibodies are important biomarkers in routine clinical use. We assessed local testing performance for myositis autoantibodies by comparing line immunoassay (LIA) to protein radio-immunoprecipitation and identifying clinical characteristics associated with each myositis autoantibody in the MyoCite cohort. Methods Serum samples from patients within the MyoCite cohort, a well-characterized retro-prospective dataset of adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) patients in Lucknow, India (2017–2020), underwent LIA at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Science (SGPGIMS), Lucknow. Immunoprecipitation of 147 IIM patients’ serum samples (125 adult-onset, 22 juvenile-onset) was conducted at the University of Bath, with researchers blind to LIA results. LIA performance was assessed against immunoprecipitation as the reference standard, measuring sensitivity, specificity and inter-rater agreement. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined clinical associations for specific myositis-specific autoantibodies. Results Immunoprecipitation identified myositis autoantibodies in 56.5% (n = 83) of patient samples, with anti-Jo1 (n = 16; 10.9%) as the most common, followed by anti-MDA5 (n = 14, 9.5%). While LIA showed good agreement for anti-Jo1, anti-PL7 and anti-PL12 (Cohen's κ 0.79, 0.83 and 1, respectively), poor agreement was observed in other subgroups, notably anti-TIF1γ (Cohen's κ 0.21). Strongly positive samples, especially in myositis-specific autoantibodies, correlated more with immunoprecipitation results. Overall, 59 (40.1%) samples exhibited non-congruence on LIA and immunoprecipitation, and κ values for LIAs for anti-TIF1γ, anti-Ku, anti-PmScl, anti-Mi2 and anti-SAE ranged between 0.21 and 0.60. Conclusion While LIA reliably detected anti-Jo1, anti-PL7, anti-PL12, anti-MDA5 and anti-NXP-2, it also displayed false positives and negatives. Its effectiveness in detecting other autoantibodies, such as anti-TIF1γ, was poor.