The 2015 guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of rheumatic diseases by the All-Russian Public Organization «Association of Rheumatology of Russia»

The paper gives the clinical guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of rheumatic diseases (RDs) elaborated by the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia in terms of the international requirements for methodology of a system search and assessment of the quality of evidence. The main goal of the laboratory diagnosis of RDs is to obtain objective information on the presence and pattern of immunopathological changes in a patient, which is an important tool for the early diagnosis, assessment of activity and severity of the disease, and its prediction, and efficiency of performed therapy. The clinical informative value of laboratory studies is determined by calculating their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and the likelihood ratio for positive and negative results. Serological antibody detection tests hold a central position in the laboratory diagnosis of RDs. The main diagnostic laboratory markers of the latter are antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, anticitrullinated protein antibodies, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, and antiphospholipid antibodies. The positive results of autoantibody detection include diagnostic criteria for systemic autoimmune RDs, are used to assess the activity and prognosis of these diseases, play an important role in the diagnosis of earlystage RD, permit identification of individual clinical and laboratory RD subtypes, and serve as predictors for RDs in the absence of its symptoms. Standard autoantibody profiles were elaborated; a list of primary (screening), secondary (confirming), and additional serological tests were made out to diagnose systemic autoimmune RDs. The important laboratory markers of RDs are acutephase indicators (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, etc.) that can assess the inflammatory activity of the disease, its progression pattern, and prognosis during the chronic inflammatory process, as well as therapeutic efficiency. Other laboratory biomarkers (immunoglobulins, immune complexes, cryoglobulins, complement components, cytokines, endothelial activation markers, lymphocyte subpopulations, genetic markers, bone and cartilage tissue metabolic parameters, etc.) are of less clinical value than autoantibodies and acute inflammatory phase parameters in diagnosing RD.

rheumatic diseases, laboratory diagnosis, biomarkers, autoantibodies, inflammatory markers

1. Насонов ЕЛ, Александрова ЕН, Новиков АА. Аутоиммунные ревматические заболевания-проблемы иммунопатологии и персонифицированной терапии. Вестник РАМН. 2015;70 (2):169-182. [Nasonov EL, Aleksandrova EN, Novikov AA. Autoimmune rheumatic diseases-problems of immunopathology and personalized treatment.Vestnik Rossiiskoi Academii Meditsinskikh Nauk. 2015;70(2):169-182. (In Russ.)]. doi:10.15690/vramn,v70i2.1310.

2. Александрова ЕН, Новиков АА, Насонов ЕЛ. Современные стандарты лабораторной диагностики ревматических заболеваний и их применение в реальной клинической практике. Научно-практическая ревматология. 2013;51(4):368-76. [Aleksandrova EN, Novikov AA, Nasonov EL. The current standards for laboratory diagnosis of rheumatic diseases and their use in real clinical practice. Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2013;51(4):368-76. (In Russ.)]. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14412/1995-4484-2013-4.

3. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: an introduction. American college of rheumatology ad hoc committee on immunologic testing guidelines. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2002; 47(4):429-433.doi: 10.1002/art.10381.

4. Александрова ЕН, Новиков АА. Лабораторная диагностика ревматических заболеваний. Ревматология: Клинические рекомендации. Под ред. Насонова Е.Л. Издательство ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2010:19-76. [Aleksandrova E, Noikov A. Laboratory diagnostics of rheumatic diseases. In Nasonov E, eds. Rheumatology: Clinical Guidelines. Moscow GEOTAR-Media; 2010:19-76. (In Russ.)].

5. Wiik A, Gordon T, Kavanaugh A, et al. Cutting edge diagnostics in rheumatology: the role of patients, clinicians, and laboratory scientists in optimizing the use of autoimmune serology. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2004; 51:291-298. doi: 10.1002/art.20229.

6. Wiik A, Cervera R, Haass M. European attempts to set guidelines for improving diagnostics of autoimmune rheumatic disorders. Lupus. 2006;15(7):391-396. doi: 10.1191/0961203306lu2322oa.

7. Shoenfeld Y, Cervera R, Haass M. EASI – The European Autoimmunity Standardization Initiative: a new initiative that can contribute to agreed diagnostic models of diagnosing autoimmune disorders throughout Europe. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2007;1109:138-144. doi: 10.1196/annals.1398.016.

8. Sack U, Conrad K, Csernok E. Standardization of autoimmune diagnostics in Germany: activities of the German group in the European Autoimmune Standardization Initiative. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2007;1109:31-36. doi: 10.1196/annals.1398.004.

9. Damoiseaux J, Tervaert J, Derksen R. Autoantibody standardization in The Netherlands. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2009;1173:10-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04631.x.

10. Bonaguri C, Melegari A, Ballabio A, et al. Italian multicentre study for application of a diagnostic algorithm in autoantibody testing for autoimmune rheumatic disease: conclusive results. Autoimmunity Reviews. 2011;11(1):1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2011.06.006.

11. Solomon D, Kavanaugh A, Schur P. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2002; 47:434-44. doi: 10.1002/art.10561.

12. Kavanaugh A, Solomon D. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2002; 47:546-55. doi: 10.1002/art.10558.

13. Reveille J, Solomon D. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee of Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidencebased guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: anticentromere, Scl-70, and nucleolar antibodies. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2003;49: 399-412. doi: 10.1002/art.11113.

14. Bertsias G, Ioannidis J, Boletis J, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2008;67:195-205. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.070367.

15. Tozzoli R, Bonaguri C, Melegari A, et al. Current state of diagnostic technologies in the autoimmunology laboratory. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2013; 51:129-138. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2012-0191.

16. Meroni P, Biggioggero M, Pierangeli S, Sheldon J, Zegers I, Borghi M. Standardization of autoantibody testing: a paradigm for serology in rheumatic diseases. Nature Reviews Rheumatology. 2013; 10(1):35-43 doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2013.180.

17. Meroni P, Schur P. ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2010;69:1420-1422. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.127100.

18. Agmon-Levin N, Damoiseaux J, Kallenberg C, et al. International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2014;73:17-23. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203863.

19. Petri M, Orbai A, Alarcоn G, et al. Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2012; 64: 2677-86. doi: 10.1002/art.34473.

20. Kavanaugh A, Tomar R, Reveille J, et al. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. American College of Pathologists. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2000;124:71-81.

21. Amigues J, Cantagrel A, Abbal M, Mazieres B. Comparative study of 4 diagnosis criteria sets for mixed connective tissue disease in patients with anti-RNP antibodies. Autoimmunity Group of the Hospitals of Toulouse. The Journal of Rheumatology.1996;23(12):2055-2062.

22. Shiboski S, Shiboski C, Criswell L, et al. American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for Sjö gren's syndrome: a datadriven, expert consensus approach in the Sjö gren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance cohort. Arthritis Care & Research. 2012;64:475-487. doi: 10.1002/acr.21591.

23. Jordan S, Maurer B, Michel B, Distler O. Performance of the new EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic sclerosis in clinical practice. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2013;72(3):60. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu530.

24. Nihtyanova S, Denton C. Autoantibodies as predictive tools in systemic sclerosis. Nature Reviews Rheumatology. 2010;6: 112-116. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2009.238.

25. Hengstman G, van Engelen B, Venrooij W. Myositis specific autoantibodies: changing insights in pathophysiology and clinical associations. Current Opinion in Rheumatology. 2004;16:692-699.

26. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman A, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2010;62: 2569-81. doi: 10.1002/art.27584.

27. Taylor P, Gartemann J, Hsieh J, Creeden J. A systematic review of serum biomarkers anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and rheumatoid factor as tests for rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmune Diseases. 2011;2011:815038. doi: 10.4061/2011/815038.

28. Miyakis S, Lockshin M, Atsumi T, Branch D, Brey R, Cervera R, Derksen R, DE Groot P, Koike T, Meroni P, Reber G, Shoenfeld Y, Tincani A, Vlachoyiannopoulos P, Krilis S. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2006; 4:295-306. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006. 01753.x.

29. Lakos G, Favaloro E, Harris E, et al. International consensus guidelines on anticardiolipin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I testing: report from the 13th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2012;64(1):1-10. doi: 10.1002/art.33349.

30. Mukhtyar C, Flossmann O, Hellmich B, et al. Outcomes from studies of antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody associated vasculitis: a systematic review by the European League Against Rheumatism systemic vasculitis task force. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2008;67:1004-1010. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.071936.

31. Sox H, Liang M. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Guidelines for rational use. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1986;104: 515-523. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-104-4-515.

32. Costenbader K, Chibnik L, Schur P. Discordance between erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein measurements: clinical significance. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. 2007;25:746-749.

33. Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2003;111:1805-1812. doi: 10.1172/jci200318921c.

34. Ridker P. Cardiology Patient Page. C-reactive protein: a simple test to help predict risk of heart attack and stroke. Circulation. 2003;108:81-85. doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000093381.57779.67.