4.7 Article

Significant differences in the analytic concordance between anti-dsDNA IgG antibody assays for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus-Implications for inter-laboratory testing

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 412, Issue 11-12, Pages 1076-1080

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2011.02.025

Keywords

dsDNA antibodies; Concordance; Method comparison

Funding

  1. ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) autoantibodies are considered hallmark of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: To determine concordance between assays for the detection of this marker, we analyzed 100 antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive sera with a homogeneous pattern and titers >= 1:160 by indirect immunofiuorescence assay (IFA) on HEp-2 cells. 100 consecutive anti-dsDNA IgG ELISA-negative as well as 100 healthy control samples using six commercial ELISAs and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFF). Results: The positivity rates for the ELISAs in the ANA positive group ranged from 55.0 to 88.0% with specificities from 84.0 to 98.0%. The CLIFF had a positivity rate of 68.0% and specificity of 84%. In the previously screened anti-dsDNA IgG-negative group, the positivity rates ranged from 1 to 19%. The overall correlations between the ELISAs ranged from 73.0 to 89.5% and varied from 70.0 to 80.0% among specific ELISAs and CLIFF. Conclusions: Our data show variable degree of concordance between anti-dsDNA IgG ELISAs which may significantly impact inter-laboratory testing as well as the diagnosis and management of SLE patients. Although some of the ELISAs show comparable performance to the CLIFF, the degree of concordance between these assays at high antibody levels suggests that CLIFF is still a relevant confirmatory tool. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available