多种族SLE患者多种族队列中多重流免疫测定法和透明荷叶测定法抗dsdna抗体不一致的临床意义

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Devyn Zaminski, Amit Saxena, Peter Izmirly, Jill P Buyon, H Michael Belmont
{"title":"多种族SLE患者多种族队列中多重流免疫测定法和透明荷叶测定法抗dsdna抗体不一致的临床意义","authors":"Devyn Zaminski, Amit Saxena, Peter Izmirly, Jill P Buyon, H Michael Belmont","doi":"10.1136/lupus-2023-001012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Anti-dsDNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) are a component of all classification schemes in SLE and comprise one of the domains in validated activity indices. Anti-dsDNA is frequently measured commercially by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or <i>Crithidia luciliae</i> immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To address the clinical impact of measuring these antibodies by two different assays, this study leveraged a well-phenotyped multiethnic/racial cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients fulfilled the classification criteria for SLE by at least one of the validated schemes: American College of Rheumatology, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics and/or American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria. Patients with one or more simultaneously paired anti-dsDNA by multiplex EIA and CLIFT were identified. Analysis of concordance or discordance, titre comparability of assays and association with hybrid SLE Disease Activity Index score, prevalence of lupus nephritis (LN), ability to predict a flare and classification criteria was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>207 patients were simultaneously tested by EIA and CLIFT at least once for anti-dsDNA, generating 586 paired results. 377 pairs were concordant and 209 were discordant. 41 of 207 patients always had discordant paired results and 39 patients always had results with titre discordance. In 100 patients with LN, 60 were positive by EIA and 72 by CLIFT. Sensitivities and specificities for patients with LN versus patients without LN were EIA 60% and 47%, and CLIFT 72% and 37%, respectively. 42 patients had flare assessment within 90 days of their paired result. Six of seven patients with mild flares and all four patients with severe flares had concordant positive results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data demonstrate that discordance of positivity between both assays for anti-dsDNA is relatively common, occurring in a fifth of patients overall and a third of visits. EIA positivity is associated with LN less often than CLIFT positivity. With the significant discordance of results between anti-dsDNA assays, obtaining both CLIFT and EIA assays may be beneficial for classification and routine monitoring of SLE.</p>","PeriodicalId":18126,"journal":{"name":"Lupus Science & Medicine","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical implications of discordance between anti-dsDNA antibodies by multiplex flow immunoassay and <i>Crithidia luciliae</i> assay in a multiethnic racial cohort of patients with SLE.\",\"authors\":\"Devyn Zaminski, Amit Saxena, Peter Izmirly, Jill P Buyon, H Michael Belmont\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/lupus-2023-001012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Anti-dsDNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) are a component of all classification schemes in SLE and comprise one of the domains in validated activity indices. Anti-dsDNA is frequently measured commercially by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or <i>Crithidia luciliae</i> immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To address the clinical impact of measuring these antibodies by two different assays, this study leveraged a well-phenotyped multiethnic/racial cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients fulfilled the classification criteria for SLE by at least one of the validated schemes: American College of Rheumatology, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics and/or American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria. Patients with one or more simultaneously paired anti-dsDNA by multiplex EIA and CLIFT were identified. Analysis of concordance or discordance, titre comparability of assays and association with hybrid SLE Disease Activity Index score, prevalence of lupus nephritis (LN), ability to predict a flare and classification criteria was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>207 patients were simultaneously tested by EIA and CLIFT at least once for anti-dsDNA, generating 586 paired results. 377 pairs were concordant and 209 were discordant. 41 of 207 patients always had discordant paired results and 39 patients always had results with titre discordance. In 100 patients with LN, 60 were positive by EIA and 72 by CLIFT. Sensitivities and specificities for patients with LN versus patients without LN were EIA 60% and 47%, and CLIFT 72% and 37%, respectively. 42 patients had flare assessment within 90 days of their paired result. Six of seven patients with mild flares and all four patients with severe flares had concordant positive results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data demonstrate that discordance of positivity between both assays for anti-dsDNA is relatively common, occurring in a fifth of patients overall and a third of visits. EIA positivity is associated with LN less often than CLIFT positivity. With the significant discordance of results between anti-dsDNA assays, obtaining both CLIFT and EIA assays may be beneficial for classification and routine monitoring of SLE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lupus Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649789/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lupus Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-001012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lupus Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-001012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:抗dsdna抗体(Anti-dsDNA)是SLE所有分类方案的一个组成部分,并且是已验证的活性指数中的一个结构域。抗dsdna通常通过酶免疫测定法(EIA)或荧光石斛(Crithidia luciliae)免疫荧光试验(CLIFT)进行商业测量。为了解决通过两种不同的检测方法测量这些抗体的临床影响,本研究利用了一个表型良好的多民族/种族队列。方法:所有患者均符合至少一种经过验证的SLE分类标准:美国风湿病学会、系统性红斑狼疮国际合作诊所和/或美国风湿病学会/欧洲抗风湿病联盟分类标准。通过多重EIA和CLIFT鉴定出一个或多个同时配对的抗- dsdna患者。分析一致性或不一致性、试验的三度可比性以及与混合型SLE疾病活动指数评分、狼疮肾炎(LN)患病率、预测急性发作的能力和分类标准的关联。结果:207例患者同时通过EIA和CLIFT检测抗dsdna至少一次,产生586对结果。377对一致,209对不一致。207例患者中有41例配对结果总是不一致,39例结果总是滴度不一致。在100例LN患者中,60例EIA阳性,72例CLIFT阳性。LN患者与非LN患者的敏感性和特异性分别为EIA的60%和47%,CLIFT的72%和37%。42例患者在配对结果后90天内进行了耀斑评估。7例轻度耀斑患者中的6例和4例重度耀斑患者均有一致的阳性结果。结论:我们的数据表明,抗dsdna两种检测方法的阳性不一致是相对常见的,发生在五分之一的患者和三分之一的就诊中。与CLIFT阳性相比,EIA阳性较少与LN相关。由于抗dsdna检测结果存在显著差异,因此同时获得CLIFT和EIA检测结果可能有助于SLE的分类和常规监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical implications of discordance between anti-dsDNA antibodies by multiplex flow immunoassay and Crithidia luciliae assay in a multiethnic racial cohort of patients with SLE.

Objective: Anti-dsDNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) are a component of all classification schemes in SLE and comprise one of the domains in validated activity indices. Anti-dsDNA is frequently measured commercially by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To address the clinical impact of measuring these antibodies by two different assays, this study leveraged a well-phenotyped multiethnic/racial cohort.

Methods: All patients fulfilled the classification criteria for SLE by at least one of the validated schemes: American College of Rheumatology, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics and/or American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria. Patients with one or more simultaneously paired anti-dsDNA by multiplex EIA and CLIFT were identified. Analysis of concordance or discordance, titre comparability of assays and association with hybrid SLE Disease Activity Index score, prevalence of lupus nephritis (LN), ability to predict a flare and classification criteria was performed.

Results: 207 patients were simultaneously tested by EIA and CLIFT at least once for anti-dsDNA, generating 586 paired results. 377 pairs were concordant and 209 were discordant. 41 of 207 patients always had discordant paired results and 39 patients always had results with titre discordance. In 100 patients with LN, 60 were positive by EIA and 72 by CLIFT. Sensitivities and specificities for patients with LN versus patients without LN were EIA 60% and 47%, and CLIFT 72% and 37%, respectively. 42 patients had flare assessment within 90 days of their paired result. Six of seven patients with mild flares and all four patients with severe flares had concordant positive results.

Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that discordance of positivity between both assays for anti-dsDNA is relatively common, occurring in a fifth of patients overall and a third of visits. EIA positivity is associated with LN less often than CLIFT positivity. With the significant discordance of results between anti-dsDNA assays, obtaining both CLIFT and EIA assays may be beneficial for classification and routine monitoring of SLE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lupus Science & Medicine
Lupus Science & Medicine RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Lupus Science & Medicine is a global, peer reviewed, open access online journal that provides a central point for publication of basic, clinical, translational, and epidemiological studies of all aspects of lupus and related diseases. It is the first lupus-specific open access journal in the world and was developed in response to the need for a barrier-free forum for publication of groundbreaking studies in lupus. The journal publishes research on lupus from fields including, but not limited to: rheumatology, dermatology, nephrology, immunology, pediatrics, cardiology, hepatology, pulmonology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychiatry.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信