This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Harris, E N Articles by Pierangeli, S S Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harris, E N Articles by Pierangeli, S S Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Revisiting the anticardiolipin test and its standardization

Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Office of the Dean, Morehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Dr SW Atlanta, GA 30310-1495, USAharrise{at}msm.edu/

S S Pierangeli

Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Although the importance of the anticardiolipin test in diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is widely accepted, there remains much misunderstanding about the strengths and weaknesses of this assay. Several disorders result in formation of low levels of the antibody, hence the anticardiolipin test is not specific when results are low positive. In general, the higher the anticardiolipin level the greater the likelihood of a diagnosis of APS. Hence there have been numerous efforts to enable reproducible measurement of anticardiolipinlevels. Standard calibrators were introduced to construct calibration curves from which levels of unknown samples can be derived. Those standard calibrators were made by mixing varying quantities of high positive with normal sera. More recently, calibrators derived from monoclonal anticardiolipin antibodies have been introduced. There are advantages and disadvantages with both types of calibrators. Determination of a precise and reproducible anticardiolipin level is difficult, whatever the calibrators used, because the assay is dependent on several variable components, any of which may fail on any given day. Utilization of a semi-quantitative measure (low, medium, high) may suffice in most clinical settings and would be less subject to error. Validated ELISA kits may offer greater reproducibility, since there is less variability than bench assays set up in very different laboratories. Whether using a kit or a bench assay, meticulous attention to detail offers the best opportunity for precision and reproducibility. Lupus (2002) 11, 269–275.

Key Words: antiphospholipidsyndrome • anticardiolipinantibodies • standardization • anticardiolipin calibrators

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Andrejevic, B. Bonaci-Nikolic, M. Sefik-Bukilica, and R. Petrovic Clinical and serological follow-up of 71 patients with anti-mitochondrial type 5 antibodies Lupus, October 1, 2007; 16(10): 788 - 793. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Mikdashi, B. Handwerger, P. Langenberg, M. Miller, and S. Kittner Baseline Disease Activity, Hyperlipidemia, and Hypertension Are Predictive Factors for Ischemic Stroke and Stroke Severity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 281 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Lim, M. A. Crowther, and J. W. Eikelboom Management of Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome: A Systematic Review JAMA, March 1, 2006; 295(9): 1050 - 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Mikdashi, A. Krumholz, and B. Handwerger Factors at diagnosis predict subsequent occurrence of seizures in systemic lupus erythematosus Neurology, June 28, 2005; 64(12): 2102 - 2107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Colburn Biomarkers in Drug Discovery and Development: From Target Identification through Drug Marketing J. Clin. Pharmacol., April 1, 2003; 43(4): 329 - 341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]