The performance of different anti-dsDNA autoantibodies assays in Chinese systemic lupus erythematosus patients

Zhao, Jiangfeng; Wang, Kaiwen; Wang, Xiaodong; Li, Ting; Guo, Li; Gu, Liyang; Chen, Zhiwei; Sun, Fangfang; Wang, Haiting; Li, Jiajie; Huang, Jiaxian; Zhang, Peng; Tang, Yang; Ye, Shuang

doi:10.1007/s10067-017-3771-x

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, new high‐throughput technologies used for anti‐dsDNA detection such as CLIA, microarray, MFI and FEIA, are increasingly replacing traditional methods such as ELISA, CLIFT and RIA. Therefore, there is need for an updated and extended evaluation of how these newer methods perform in terms of diagnostic accuracy and commutability in the detection of anti‐dsDNA autoantibodies 29–32 . This is highly important because anti‐dsDNA testing is a mainstay in the diagnosis, classification and, in some settings, to follow the clinical course of relapse and remission, and/or response to therapeutics of SLE patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, there is need for an updated and extended evaluation of how these newer methods perform in terms of diagnostic accuracy and commutability in the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. [29][30][31][32] This is highly important because anti-dsDNA testing is a mainstay in the diagnosis, classification and, in some settings, to follow the clinical course of relapse and remission, and/or response to therapeutics of SLE patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of current methods for anti‐dsDNA antibody detection and reshaping diagnostic strategies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anti–double‐stranded DNA antibodies (anti‐dsDNA) are considered a specific marker for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Though the Farr technique was once the reference method for their detection, it has been almost entirely replaced by more recently developed assays. However, there is still no solid evidence of the commutability of these methods in terms of diagnostic accuracy and their correlation with the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Anti‐dsDNA antibody levels were measured in 80 subjects: 24 patients with SLE, 36 disease controls drawn from different autoimmune rheumatic diseases (14 systemic sclerosis, 10 Sjögren's syndrome, nine autoimmune myositis, three mixed connective tissue disease), 10 inflammatory arthritis and 10 apparently healthy blood donors by eight different methods: fluorescence enzyme immunoassay, microdot array, chemiluminescent immunoassay (two assays), multiplex flow immunoassay, particle multi‐analyte technology immunoassay and two CLIFT. At the recommended manufacturer cut‐off, the sensitivity varied from 67% to 92%, while the specificity ranged from 84% to 98%. Positive agreement among CLIFT and the other assays was higher than negative agreement. Mean agreement among methods assessed by the Cohen's kappa was 0.715, ranging from moderate (0.588) to almost perfect (0.888). Evaluation of the concordance among quantitative values by regression analysis showed a poor correlation index (mean r2, 0.66). The present study shows that current technologies for anti‐dsDNA antibody detection are not fully comparable. In particular, their different correlation with CLIFT influences their positioning in the diagnostic algorithm for SLE (either in association or sequentially). Considering the high intermethod variability, harmonization and commutability of anti‐dsDNA antibody testing remains an unachieved goal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of current methods for anti‐dsDNA antibody detection and reshaping diagnostic strategies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the BioPlex 2200 anti-dsDNA kit demonstrated the highest LRþ and OR, which is consistent with a previous study showing the BioPlex 2200 anti-dsDNA assay as having high sensitivity and specificity compared to other commercially available anti-dsDNA assays for Chinese SLE patients. 35 The majority of discrepant SLE samples that tested positive for total anti-dsDNA antibodies and negative for HA anti-dsDNA antibodies were for patients with a M-SLEDAI of <4 (Table 2 and online Supplemental Table S2). These results suggest that some inactive SLE patients may only have low-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of total and high-avidity anti-dsDNA antibody assays for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus

Yuan

Cao

Wan

et al. 2019

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study evaluated the diagnostic performances of total and high-avidity (HA) anti-dsDNA enzyme immunoassays (EIA) in Chinese systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients. Methods A total of 410 serum samples from 217 SLE patients, 54 patients with other systemic autoimmune diseases, and 139 healthy subjects were tested on total and HA anti-dsDNA EIA, as well as three commercial in vitro diagnostic kits: BioPlex 2200 ANA Screen, Kallestad anti-dsDNA EIA, and Crithidia Lucilae IFA. The disease activities of SLE patients were assessed using the modified SLE Disease Activity Index. The diagnostic performances of each assay were analyzed using Analyse-it software. Results The diagnostic performances of the total and HA anti-dsDNA EIA kits were comparable to other commercially available in vitro diagnostic assays. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated an area under the curve ranging from 0.85 to 0.89, with the total anti-dsDNA kit demonstrating the highest sensitivity and the HA kit showing higher specificity. An overall agreement of >90% was observed between the total and HA anti-dsDNA EIA kits and commercially available quantitative anti-dsDNA kits. The ratio of HA to total anti-dsDNA antibody was significantly higher among SLE patients with active disease status and/or kidney damage. All assays exhibited a significant correlation with disease activity and multiple clinical manifestations. Conclusions While the clinical performances of various anti-dsDNA assays showed adequate agreements, the BioPlex 2200 anti-dsDNA assay demonstrated the highest positive likelihood ratio and odds ratio. The HA anti-dsDNA EIA kit in association with the total anti-dsDNA kit provided superior performance in SLE diagnosis and monitoring disease activity.

show abstract

“…The preferred anti ds-DNA antibodies together with the ANA test in systemic autoimmune rheumatism diseases such as Sjögren syndrome, SLE, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are mostly detected in SLE. The specificity and sensitivity of this test in SLE is 97% and 57%, respectively [34,35]. Studies have been conducted investigating the prevalence of anti-dsDNA, and systemic autoimmune diseases in the literature; however, the prevalence of anti-dsDNA has not been emphasized directly in patients with MS and MS-like disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoantibodies and Vitamin Levels: Is A Player Or Not in Pathophysiology of Multiple Sclerosis Patients?

Türkoğlu¹,

Öğün²,

Karabörk³

et al. 2018

Arch Clin Biomed Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and Aim: Multiple sclerosis is a demyelinating autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. ANA, anti-dsDNA, and ENA profiles have been used in the diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune diseases. Low vitamin D and B12, and folate levels, and high homocysteine levels are often detected in autoimmune diseases. In the present study, we aimed to investigate these parameters in patients with Multiple sclerosis and Multiple sclerosis like disease, as diagnosed in accordance with the revised McDonald criteria. Methods:The laboratory results of 161 (53Multiple sclerosis, 108 Multiple sclerosis like) patients who were examined for the differential diagnosis of vasculitis/Multiple sclerosis in the last 14 months were evaluated in this present retrospective, cross-sectional study. ANA, anti-dsDNA, ENA profile, vitamin D and B12, folic acid, and homocysteine levels were recorded.Results: ANA levels in 12 patients with Multiple sclerosis and in 34 patients with Multiple sclerosis like disease were positive; however, ANA levels were negative in 37 patients Multiple sclerosis, and 72 patients with Multiple sclerosis like disease. Anti-dsDNA levels in 4 patients Multiple sclerosis and in 23 with Multiple sclerosis like disease were positive; however, they were negative in 44 patients with Multiple sclerosis and 81 with Multiple sclerosis like disease. The mean vitamin B12 and D, and folate levels of 111 patients were found below the lower normal limit, whereas PTH and homocysteine levels were found over the upper normal limit.

show abstract

The performance of different anti-dsDNA autoantibodies assays in Chinese systemic lupus erythematosus patients

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of current methods for anti‐dsDNA antibody detection and reshaping diagnostic strategies

Comparison of current methods for anti‐dsDNA antibody detection and reshaping diagnostic strategies

Clinical evaluation of total and high-avidity anti-dsDNA antibody assays for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus

Autoantibodies and Vitamin Levels: Is A Player Or Not in Pathophysiology of Multiple Sclerosis Patients?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About