暂无摘要。

To investigate humoral responses and safety of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in systemic autoimmune and autoinflammatory rheumatic disease (SAARD) patients subjected or not to treatment modifications during vaccination.
A nationwide, multicenter study, including 605 SAARD patients and 116 controls, prospectively evaluated serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-protein IgG antibody titers, side-effects, and disease activity, one month after complete vaccination, in terms of distinct treatment modification strategies (none, partial and extended modifications). Independent risk factors associated with hampered humoral responses were identified by data-driven multivariable logistic regression analysis.
Patients with extended treatment modifications responded to vaccines similarly to controls as well as SAARD patients without immunosuppressive therapy (97.56% vs 100%, p = 0.2468 and 97.56% vs 97.46%, p > 0.9999, respectively). In contrast, patients with partial or without therapeutic modifications responded in 87.50% and 84.50%, respectively. Furthermore, SAARD patients with extended treatment modifications developed higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels compared to those without or with partial modifications (median:7.90 vs 7.06 vs 7.1, p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0195, respectively). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), rituximab (RTX) and methotrexate (MTX) negatively affected anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses. In 10.5% of vaccinated patients, mild clinical deterioration was noted; however, no differences in the incidence of deterioration were observed among the distinct treatment modification SAARD subgroups. Side-effects were generally comparable between SAARD patients and controls.
In SAARD patients, mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective and safe, both in terms of side-effects and disease flares. Treatment with MMF, RTX and/or MTX compromises anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses, which are restored upon extended treatment modifications without affecting disease activity.

OBJECTIVE: Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by immunofluorescence assay (IFA) is increasingly substituted by multiplex bead-based immunoassay (MBA) and line-blot immunoassay (LIA). This study is to compare the diagnostic performance of MBA and LIA ANA assays on clinically characterized patient samples.
METHODS: A total of 728 serum samples from 385 patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD), 204 patients with non-SARD diseases, and 139 apparently healthy subjects were tested with the BioPlex 2200 ANA Screen and EuroLine ANA Profile 3 as the representative MBA and LIA technologies and HEp-2 ANA IFA. Clinical data were collected independent of laboratory analysis and later related to the ANA test results. The clinical diagnostic performances were analyzed using Analyse-it software.
RESULTS: The MBA demonstrated higher area under curve (AUC) compared to LIA (0.814 vs 0.761, p = 0.002) and HEp-2 IFA (0.814 vs 0.771, p = 0.008). The MBA and LIA ANA methods showed higher specificity (83.8% and 77.0% vs 67.6%, p < 0.001 and p = 0.005) but lower sensitivity (79.0% and 75.3% vs 86.5%, p < 0.001) compared to HEp-2 IFA. The MBA and LIA ANA revealed substantial to excellent agreements on specific antinuclear antibodies except anti-dsDNA, with the total agreement from 92.3 to 99.9% and Cohen\'s kappa from 0.71 to 0.98. The MBA demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (58.1% vs 19.8%, p < 0.001) and comparable specificity (95.9% vs 97.5%, p = 0.221) on anti-dsDNA assay for the diagnosis of SLE compared to LIA.
CONCLUSIONS: The MBA and LIA ANA assays have higher specificity but lower sensitivity compared to HEp-2 IFA. There are good agreements between MBA and LIA ANA for the specific antinuclear antibodies except for anti-dsDNA. The MBA ANA demonstrated better assay performance compared to LIA as the MBA possesses higher sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of SARD. Key Points • The multiplex bead-based immunoassay (MBA) ANA outperformed line-blot immunoassay (LIA) and traditional HEp-2 IFA. • There are good agreements between the MBA BioPlex 2200 ANA Screen and LIA EuroLine ANA Profile 3 for the most of specific antinuclear antibodies except anti-dsDNA. • Additional anti-dsDNA testing is suggested when EuroLine ANA Profile 3 is used for the aid of SLE diagnosis and management. • The positive predictive value of both multiplex ANA assays can be substantially increased without significantly affecting negative predictive value by using at least two specific antinuclear antibodies for reporting a positive ANA result.