Background The introduction of automated anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) analysis may allow for more harmonized ANA IIF reporting, provided that a thorough quality assurance program controls this process. The aim of this study was to evaluate various quality indicators used for ANA IIF analysis with the final goal of optimizing the iQC program. Methods In an experimental setup, we introduced artificial errors, mimicking plausible problems during routine practice on a QUANTA-Lyser-NOVA View® system (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA). Predetermined quality indicators were evaluated against predefined acceptance criteria. In addition, we retrospectively investigated the applicability of the selected quality indicators in the daily routine practice during three pre-defined periods. Results Both the experimental as the retrospective study revealed that pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical errors were not highlighted by company internal quality control (iQC) materials. The use of patient derived iQC samples, median fluorescence intensity results per run and the percentage of positive ANA IIF results as additional quality indicators ensured a more adequate ANA IIF quality assurance. Furthermore, negative and moderate positive sample iQC materials merit clinical validation, as titer changes of >1 correspond to clinically important shifts. Traditional Westgard rules, including a clinically defined stop limit, revealed to be useful in monitoring of the supplemental quality indicators. Conclusions A thorough ANA IIF quality assurance for daily routine practice necessitates the addition of supplemental quality indicators in combination with well-defined acceptance criteria.
Keywords: antinuclear antibodies; automation; indirect immunofluorescence; quality control.