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.