Comparison of quantitative and qualitative anti-dsDNA assays.

Rajeevan Selvaratnam, Pooja Srivastava, Danyel H Tacker, Jennifer Thebo, Sarah E Wheeler
{"title":"Comparison of quantitative and qualitative anti-dsDNA assays.","authors":"Rajeevan Selvaratnam, Pooja Srivastava, Danyel H Tacker, Jennifer Thebo, Sarah E Wheeler","doi":"10.1093/labmed/lmae035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In evaluation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) play a significant role in diagnosis, monitoring SLE activity, and assessing prognosis. However, evaluations of the performance and limitations for recently developed methods for anti-dsDNA assessment are sparse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specimens used for antinuclear antibody testing (n = 129) were evaluated for anti-dsDNA assay comparability across 4 medical centers in the United States. The methods compared were Werfen Quanta Lite dsDNA, Zeus Scientific dsDNA Enzyme Immunoassay, Bio-Rad multiplex immunoassay (MIA) dsDNA, ImmunoConcepts Crithidia, and Bio-Rad Laboratories Crithidia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For quantitative anti-dsDNA measurements, Spearman's correlation coefficient was highest between Zeus and Werfen (ρ = 0.86; CI, 0.81-0.90; P < .0001). Comparison of MIA to Werfen or Zeus yielded similar results to each other (ρ = 0.58; CI, 0.44-0.68; P < .0001; and ρ = 0.59; CI, 0.46-0.69; P < .0001, respectively), but lower than the correlation between Zeus and Werfen. Positive concordance between assays ranged from 31.4% to 97.1%, and negative concordance between assays ranged from 58.5% to 100%. The detection of anti-dsDNA in those with SLE diagnosis ranged from 50.9% to 77.4% for quantitative assays and 15.1% to 24.5% for Crithidia assays.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current quantitative anti-dsDNA assays are not interchangeable for patient follow-up. Crithidia-based assays demonstrate high negative concordance and lack positive concordance among the methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":94124,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"732-738"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmae035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In evaluation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) play a significant role in diagnosis, monitoring SLE activity, and assessing prognosis. However, evaluations of the performance and limitations for recently developed methods for anti-dsDNA assessment are sparse.

Methods: Specimens used for antinuclear antibody testing (n = 129) were evaluated for anti-dsDNA assay comparability across 4 medical centers in the United States. The methods compared were Werfen Quanta Lite dsDNA, Zeus Scientific dsDNA Enzyme Immunoassay, Bio-Rad multiplex immunoassay (MIA) dsDNA, ImmunoConcepts Crithidia, and Bio-Rad Laboratories Crithidia.

Results: For quantitative anti-dsDNA measurements, Spearman's correlation coefficient was highest between Zeus and Werfen (ρ = 0.86; CI, 0.81-0.90; P < .0001). Comparison of MIA to Werfen or Zeus yielded similar results to each other (ρ = 0.58; CI, 0.44-0.68; P < .0001; and ρ = 0.59; CI, 0.46-0.69; P < .0001, respectively), but lower than the correlation between Zeus and Werfen. Positive concordance between assays ranged from 31.4% to 97.1%, and negative concordance between assays ranged from 58.5% to 100%. The detection of anti-dsDNA in those with SLE diagnosis ranged from 50.9% to 77.4% for quantitative assays and 15.1% to 24.5% for Crithidia assays.

Conclusion: Current quantitative anti-dsDNA assays are not interchangeable for patient follow-up. Crithidia-based assays demonstrate high negative concordance and lack positive concordance among the methods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抗dsDNA定量和定性检测方法的比较。
目的:在系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)的评估中,抗双链DNA抗体(anti-dsDNA)在诊断、监测SLE活动和评估预后方面发挥着重要作用。然而,对最近开发的抗双链 DNA 抗体评估方法的性能和局限性的评估还很少:方法:对美国 4 家医疗中心用于抗核抗体检测的标本(n = 129)进行了抗dsDNA 检测可比性评估。比较的方法包括 Werfen Quanta Lite dsDNA、Zeus Scientific dsDNA 酶联免疫测定、Bio-Rad 多重免疫测定 (MIA) dsDNA、ImmunoConcepts Crithidia 和 Bio-Rad Laboratories Crithidia:在抗dsDNA定量测量中,Zeus和Werfen的斯皮尔曼相关系数最高(ρ = 0.86;CI,0.81-0.90;P < .0001)。MIA 与 Werfen 或 Zeus 的比较结果相似(ρ = 0.58;CI,0.44-0.68;P < .0001;ρ = 0.59;CI,0.46-0.69;P < .0001),但低于 Zeus 和 Werfen 之间的相关性。不同检测方法之间的阳性一致性从 31.4% 到 97.1%,阴性一致性从 58.5% 到 100%。定量检测法在系统性红斑狼疮确诊患者中的抗dsDNA检出率为50.9%至77.4%,克里希德检测法为15.1%至24.5%:结论:目前的抗dsDNA定量检测方法在患者随访中不能互换。结论:目前的抗dsDNA定量检测方法在患者随访中不能互换,基于克里希德菌的检测方法显示出较高的阴性一致性,但缺乏阳性一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of basic lymphocyte phenotype results between a diagnostic and a research laboratory. Evidence-based approach for the generation of a multivariate logistic regression model that predicts instrument failure. Correlation of the abundance of MDSCs, Tregs, PD-1, and PD-L1 with the efficacy of chemotherapy and prognosis in gastric cancer. Correction to: The utility of an algorithm based on procalcitonin monitoring in patients with sepsis. Implementing laboratory internal audit to improve compliance and quality of care in the municipal public health system-based ambulatory care health clinics in New York city.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1