Statistics from Altmetric.com
Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies and rheumatoid factor (RF) are recommended screening tests for rheumatoid arthritis.1 In a meta-analysis,2 the sensitivity of anti-CCP (67%) for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis was comparable to the sensitivity of RF (69%).2 The specificity of anti-CCP for rheumatoid arthritis (95%) was higher than the specificity of RF (85%).2 Consequently, the positive likelihood ratio was higher for anti-CCP (12.46) than for RF (4.86).2
Studies that addressed the clinical usefulness of anti-CCP used a single cut-off value and, hence, likelihood ratios were calculated based on a single cut-off. In the present letter, we illustrate how likelihood ratios for anti-CCP and RF depend on the antibody level. Our calculations were based on a clinically well defined group of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 85), diseased controls (n = 165) (including psoriatic arthritis, connective tissue disease and organ specific autoimmune diseases), and a group of consecutive patients for whom a rheumatologist ordered anti-CCP (n = 48). The characteristics of the patients and controls are described in detail in Coenen et al.3 Anti-CCP was assayed with Phadia Unicap (cut-off: 7 units/ml; Phadia, Uppsala, Sweden). On all samples, RF was determined by nephelometry (Immage, Beckman-Coulter, Fullerton, California, USA; cut-off: 20 IU/ml).
Table 1 summarises the sensitivities and specificities of anti-CCP and RF for several cut-offs. This illustrates that increasing the cut-off results in enhanced specificity and decreased sensitivity. Next, we calculated the likelihood for an anti-CCP test result <7 units/ml, between 7 and 25 units/ml and >25 units/ml for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and controls. For patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the likelihoods were 22.5%, 6.9% and 70.6%, respectively. For controls, the values were 96.0%, 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively. For each test result interval, the likelihood ratio (ie, the likelihood for patients with rheumatoid arthritis divided by the likelihood for controls) was calculated. The likelihood ratios for anti-CCP were 0.23 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.33), 4.5 (95% CI 0.64 to 84.2) and 27.7 (95% CI 11.6 to 97.1) for <7 units/ml, 7–25 units/ml and >25 units/ml, respectively. The results are shown in fig 1A. A similar analysis was performed for RF (fig 1B). The likelihood ratios for RF were 0.4 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.57), 2.0 (95% CI 1.0 to 4.2), 2.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 7.4) and 4.8 (95% CI 2.1 to 14.0) for <20 IU/ml, 20–100 IU/ml, 101–300 IU/ml and >300 IU/ml, respectively. These data (i) illustrate that the likelihood ratios increase with increasing antibody levels and (ii) confirm that the likelihood ratios are higher for anti-CCP than for RF. The likelihood ratio for anti-CCP between 7 and 25 units/ml (slightly elevated values) equalled the likelihood ratio of highly elevated (>300 IU/ml) RF values, which demonstrates the superior performance of anti-CCP compared to RF.
For each test result interval of anti-CCP and RF, the post test probability for rheumatoid arthritis was calculated as a function of the pretest probability. The results are shown in fig 1C,D.
In conclusion, we illustrated how likelihood ratios and post test probabilities depend on antibody level for anti-CCP and RF. Such knowledge helps with the interpretation of a specific test result. Clinical laboratories might consider providing likelihoods ratios for test result intervals.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was obtained.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.