4.5 Article

Four Anti-dsDNA Antibody Assays in Relation to Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Specificity and Activity

Journal

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 817-825

Publisher

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.140677

Keywords

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS; DOUBLE-STRANDED DNA; IMMUNOASSAY; AUTOANTIBODIES; INFLAMMATION; RHEUMATIC DISEASE

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [K2012-69X-14594-10-3, K2011-68X-20611-04-3]
  2. Swedish Society for Medicine [SLS-331171]
  3. Swedish Society Against Rheumatism [R-313701, R-307291]
  4. Swedish Society for Medical Research
  5. King Gustaf V 80-year Foundation [FAI2013-0066]
  6. Professor Nanna Svartz foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Analysis of antibodies against dsDNA is an important diagnostic tool for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and changes in anti-dsDNA antibody levels are also used to assess disease activity. Herein, 4 assays were compared with regard to SLE specificity, sensitivity, and association with disease activity variables. Methods. Cross-sectional sera from 178 patients with SLE, of which 11 were followed consecutively, from a regional Swedish SLE register were analyzed for immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-dsDNA by bead-based multiplex assay (FIDIS; Theradig), fluoroenzyme-immunoassay (EliA; Phadia/Thermo Fisher Scientific), Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT; ImmunoConcepts), and line blot (EUROLINE; Euroimmun). All patients with SLE fulfilled the 1982 American College of Rheumatology and/or the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC-12) classification criteria. Healthy individuals (n = 100), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 95), and patients with primary Sjogren syndrome (n = 54) served as controls. Results. CLIFT had the highest SLE specificity (98%) whereas EliA had the highest sensitivity (35%). When cutoff levels for FIDIS, EliA, and EUROLINE were adjusted according to SLICC-12 (i.e., double the reference limit when using ELISA), the specificity and sensitivity of FIDIS was comparable to CLIFT. FIDIS and CLIFT also showed the highest concordance (84%). FIDIS performed best regarding association with disease activity in cross-sectional and consecutive samples. Fisher's exact test revealed striking differences between methods regarding associations with certain disease phenotypes. Conclusion. CLIFT remains a good choice for diagnostic purposes, but FIDIS performs equally well when the cutoff is adjusted according to SLICC-12. Based on results from cross-sectional and consecutive analyses, FIDIS can also be recommended to monitor disease activity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available