Autoantibody detection is the cornerstone of autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) diagnosis. Standardisation of working algorithms among autoimmunity laboratories, as well as being aware of the sensitivity and specificity of various commercial techniques in daily practice, are still necessary. The aim of this nationwide study is to report the results of the 2020 Autoimmunity Workshop organised by the Autoimmunity Group of the Spanish Society of Immunology and to provide useful information to clinicians and laboratory specialists to improve the management of autoantibody detection in AILD diagnoses. Serum samples from 17 patients with liver diseases were provided by the organisers of the 2020 Autoimmunity Workshop and were subsequently analysed by the 40 participating laboratories. Each laboratory used different techniques for the detection of autoantibodies in each patients’ serum sample, according to their working algorithm. Thus, almost 680 total complete patient reports were obtained, and the number of results from different autoantibody detection techniques was >3000. Up to eight different working algorithms were employed, including indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFA) and antigen-specific techniques (AgST). The IFA of HEp-2 cells was more sensitive than IFA of rat triple tissue for the study of anti-nuclear autoantibodies (ANA) associated with AILD. The IFA of a human neutrophil study for the analysis of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies was not carried out systemically in all patients, or by all laboratories. AgSTs were the most sensitive methods for the detection of anti-smooth muscle/F-actin, soluble liver antigen, liver cytosol-1, M2-mitochondrial autoantibodies, and ANA associated with primary biliary cholangitis. The main differences in AMA detection were due to patients with autoantibodies against the non-dominant epitope of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. Given that they are complementary, IFA and AgST should be performed in parallel. If there is high suspicion of AILD, AgST should always be performed.

Background: M2-type anti-mitochondrial autoantibodies are considered the hallmark of primary biliary cholangitis and are directed mainly against the E2 subunits of the 2-oxo acid dehydrogenase complex enzymes (PDC, BCOADC and OGDC). The aim of this study was to determine whether a Dot-blot that includes these E2 subunits separately could confirm the results of methods with non-separated subunits in patients with low positive or discordant results between techniques. Methods: Sera of 24 patients with low positive or discordant results and of 10 patients with clear positive results by non-separated subunits methods were analyzed by Dot-blot with separated subunits. Results: Autoantibodies against E2 subunits of PDC, BCOADC or OGDC were detected in all patients, except in one case from the low positive or discordant results group, by Dot-blot with separated subunits. Conclusions: It would be advisable to use methods that include the three E2 subunits, and a Dot-blot with separated subunits could confirm doubtful cases by non-separated assays.

Anti-dsDNA autoantibodies quantification and complement levels are widely used to monitor disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, better biomarkers are still needed. We hypothesised whether the dsDNA antibody-secreting B-cells could be a complementary biomarker in disease activity and prognosis of SLE patients. Fifty-two SLE patients were enrolled and followed for up to 12 months. Additionally, 39 controls were included. An activity cut-off (comparing active and non-active patients according to clinical SLEDAI-2K) was established for SLE-ELISpot, chemiluminescence and Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence tests (≥11.24, ≥374.1 and ≥1, respectively). Assays performances together with complement status were compared regarding major organ involvement at the inclusion and flare-up risk prediction after follow-up. SLE-ELISpot showed the best performance in identifying active patients. High SLE-ELISpot results were associated with haematological involvement and, after follow-up, with an increased hazard ratio for disease flare-up (3.4) and especially renal flare (6.5). Additionally, the combination of hypocomplementemia and high SLE-ELISpot results increased those risks up to 5.2 and 32.9, respectively. SLE-ELISpot offers complementary information to anti-dsDNA autoantibodies to evaluate the risk of a flare-up in the following year. In some cases, adding SLE-ELISpot to the current follow-up protocol for SLE patients can improve clinicians’ personalised care decisions.

Full Papers; Authors: A. Pérez-Isidro, G.M. Lledó-Ibáñez, N. De Moner, M. Torradeflot, M.J. Martínez, G. Espinosa, M. Tena Campos, M. Grundhuber, O. Viñas, E. Ruiz-Ortiz