Clinical significance of ELISA positive and immunofluorescence negative anti-dsDNA antibody

Diagnostic Performance of Anti-dsDNA Tests by Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Several laboratory techniques for anti double-stranded (ds) DNA detection in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are available, with variable diagnostic performance. We aimed to evaluate anti-dsDNA's diagnostic performance by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (EIA).

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective (2015 to 2020) study. Patients with anti-dsDNA tests by IIF and EIA were included. We evaluated the indications, applications, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV) of anti-dsDNA to confirm SLE diagnosis or flares, and associations of disease manifestations with positivity with each technique.

RESULTS

A total of 1368 reports of anti-dsDNA tests by IIF and EIA and the corresponding medical records of the patients were analyzed. The main indication for anti-dsDNA testing was to help in the diagnosis of SLE in 890 (65%) of the samples, and the main application after obtaining the results was SLE exclusion in 782 (57.2%) cases. The combination with the highest frequency was the negativity result by both techniques in 801 (58.5%) cases (Cohen kappa 0.57). Both methods were positive in 300 patients with SLE (Cohen kappa 0.42). The PPVs of anti-dsDNA tests to confirm diagnosis/flare was 79.64% (95% CI, 75.35-83.35) by EIA, 78.75% (95% CI, 74.27-82.62) by IIF, and 82% (95% CI, 77.26-85.93) when both were positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-dsDNA detection by IIF and EIA are complementary and may indicate different clinical patterns in patients with SLE. The detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies by both techniques has a higher PPV than either separately for confirming SLE diagnosis or flares. These results highlight the need for evaluating both methods in clinical practice.

Automated Evaluation of Crithidia luciliae Based Indirect Immunofluorescence Tests: A Novel Application of the EUROPattern-Suite Technology

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a severe rheumatic autoimmune disease with various clinical manifestations. Anti-dsDNA antibodies are an important immunological hallmark of SLE and their occurrence represents a major criterion for the diagnosis. Among the commonly applied test systems for determination of anti-dsDNA antibodies, the indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) using the flagellated kinetoplastida Crithidia luciliae is considered to be highly disease specific at moderate sensitivity. Since IIFT, however, is claimed to be affected by subjective interpretation and a lack of standardization, there has been an increasing demand for automated pattern interpretation of immunofluorescence reactions in recent years. Corresponding platforms are already available for evaluation of anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) IIFT on HEp-2 cells, the recommended “gold standard” for ANA screening in the diagnosis of various systemic rheumatic autoimmune diseases. For one of these systems, the “EUROPattern-Suite” computer-aided immunofluorescence microscopy (CAIFM), automated interpretation of microscopic fluorescence patterns was extended to the Crithidia luciliae based anti-dsDNA IIFT.

Clinical phenotype associations with various types of anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with recent onset of rheumatic symptoms. Results from a multicentre observational study

Despite anti-dsDNA antibodies constitute a wide range of specificities, they are considered as the hallmark for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

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

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 immunofluorescence 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 (CLIFT).

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 CLIFT 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 CLIFT.

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 CLIFT, the degree of concordance between these assays at high antibody levels suggests that CLIFT is still a relevant confirmatory tool.

Generalised lymphadenopathy as the first manifestation of lupus nephritis

Fever with generalised lymphadenopathy is a common presentation in clinical practice. A degree of lymphadenopathy is frequently a characteristic of established systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but it is rarely the primary presenting feature. A 25-year-old man presented with night sweats, weight loss and generalised lymphadenopathy. A chest computed tomography scan confirmed the presence of mediastinal, hilar and axillary lymphadenopathy, with bilateral pleural effusions. The double stranded DNA antibody (anti-dsDNA) was absent. Subsequently, there was mild renal impairment and a renal biopsy showed lupus nephritis. Anti-dsDNA was positive using an alternative assay. Treatment with prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil led to considerable clinical improvement. Extensive lymphadenopathy as the first clinical manifestation of SLE is rare and this case also illustrates the variable results obtained from different anti-dsDNA antibody assays.

Diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus: new-generation immunoassays for measurement of anti-dsDNA antibodies are an effective alternative to the Farr technique and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four new enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-double-stranded-DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, in comparison with the Farr assay and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To this purpose, sera from four patient groups were collected: 52 sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); 28 from patients with other connective tissue diseases (CTD); 36 from patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; and 24 from those with acute viral infection. All sera were tested for anti-dsDNA antibodies by four EIA methods using a different antigenic DNA source [synthetic oligonucleotide (Method A), circular plasmid (Method B), recombinant (Method C), and purified extracted (Method D)], and by CLIFT and Farr assays. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was as follows: 84.6% (Method A), 73% (B), 82.7% (C), 84.6% (D), 55.8% (CLIFT), and 78.8% (Farr). Specificity was 82.9% (A), 97.7% (B), 96.5% (C), 94.3% (D), 96.5% (CLIFT), and 90.9% (Farr). From these data, we can conclude that the new-generation EIA methods evaluated in this study have higher sensitivity than the CLIFT and Farr assays and, with the exception of Method A, have specificity similar to the CLIFT and slightly higher than the Farr assay. These findings suggest that EIA tests may replace CLIFT as a screening test and the Farr assay as a specific test, for anti-dsDNA antibody detection.