Current state of technologies and recognition of anti‐SSA/Ro antibodies in China: A multi‐center study

Background Previous studies have demonstrated that Ro60 and Ro52 have different clinical implications, and anti‐Ro52 antibodies are an independent serum marker of systemic autoimmune diseases, including Sjögren's syndrome. Many different assays have been adopted to detect anti‐Sjögren's syndrome antigen A (SSA)/Ro antibodies, while to date no specific approach has been recommended as optimal for anti‐SSA/Ro antibody testing. Herein, we performed a multi‐center study to explore the current clinical utility of different strategies for anti‐SSA/Ro antibody testing in China. Methods Twenty‐one tertiary care centers were included in this questionnaire‐based study. The self‐administered questionnaire mainly includes testing methods for anti‐SSA/Ro antibodies, reporting system of results, and interpretation of results by clinicians. Results Six different methods were applied to detect anti‐SSA/Ro antibodies in the 21 centers. Line immunoassay (eight different commercial kits) was the most frequently adopted method (21/21, 100%), with different cutoff values and strategies for intensity stratification. There were two reporting systems: One was reported as “anti‐SSA antibodies” and “anti‐Ro52 antibodies” (12/21, 57%), while the other was “anti‐SSA/Ro60 antibodies” and “anti‐SSA/Ro52 antibodies” (9/21, 43%). Notably, six centers (29%) considered either positive anti‐Ro60 or anti‐Ro52 antibodies as positive anti‐SSA antibodies, all of which adopted the latter reporting system. Conclusion Significant variabilities existed among anti‐SSA/Ro assays. Nearly 30% of centers misinterpreted the definition of positive anti‐SSA antibodies, which may be attributed to the confusing reporting systems of line immunoassay. Therefore, we advocate standardization of the nomenclature of anti‐SSA/Ro antibodies, changing the “anti‐SSA/Ro52” label in favor of the “anti‐Ro52” antibodies for a clear designation. Significant variabilities existed among anti‐SSA/Ro assays, with LIA as the most common used method. Nearly one‐third of the centers misinterpreted the definition of positive anti‐SSA antibodies, which may be attributed to the confusing reporting systems of LIA. We advocate changing the “anti‐SSA/Ro52” label in favor of “anti‐Ro52 antibodies” for a clear designation