新型数字液体芯片检测SLE抗dsdna的临床评价。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Yina Bai, Rui Yu, Chiyuan Xue, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Xiaofeng Zeng, Mengtao Li, Chaojun Hu
{"title":"新型数字液体芯片检测SLE抗dsdna的临床评价。","authors":"Yina Bai, Rui Yu, Chiyuan Xue, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Xiaofeng Zeng, Mengtao Li, Chaojun Hu","doi":"10.1136/lupus-2025-001608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the digital liquid chip method (DLCM) compared with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody detection in SLE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective study consecutively enrolled 1349 patients, including 698 with SLE and 651 with other autoimmune diseases at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected using IIF (EUROIMMUN, Luebeck, Germany), CLIA (YHLO, Shenzhen, China) and DLCM (Livzon, Zhuhai, China). The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of each method and combination were compared at the recommended manufacturer cut-offs. The agreement between methods and the association between antibody levels and clinical characteristics including disease activity, complement levels and organ involvement were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods exhibited high specificity, while IIF performed best (98.5%), significantly greater than CLIA (96.3%) and DLCM (96.6%) (p < 0.05). CLIA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (48.1%), outperforming IIF (36.0%) and DLCM (41.4%) (p<0.001). Cohen's kappa indicated substantial positive agreement between DLCM and CLIA (κ=0.67), and moderate agreement between IIF and the other methods (κ=0.52-0.55). Combining IIF with DLCM or CLIA improved diagnosis performance, with IIF+CLIA achieving the highest sensitivity (54.0%), accuracy (74.1%) and AUC (0.75). Moreover, anti-dsDNA positivity was strongly associated with lower complement levels (C3: 0.71 vs 0.90 g/L in DLCM+ vs DLCM-, p<0.001) and moderate-severe disease activity (65.0% DLCM positive). DLCM uniquely predicted musculoskeletal involvement (55.3% vs 44.7%, p<0.01). However, the diagnostic performance for renal involvement was limited (sensitivity 46.9%, specificity 56.3%, AUC=0.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DLCM demonstrated substantial agreement with CLIA and held potential for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. A multiassay strategy, using a sensitive assay like CLIA or DLCM for initial screening and a highly specific assay like IIF for confirmation, optimises diagnostic performance for anti-dsDNA antibody detection in SLE.</p>","PeriodicalId":18126,"journal":{"name":"Lupus Science & Medicine","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12265827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical evaluation of the novel digital liquid chip method for anti-dsDNA detection in SLE.\",\"authors\":\"Yina Bai, Rui Yu, Chiyuan Xue, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Xiaofeng Zeng, Mengtao Li, Chaojun Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/lupus-2025-001608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the digital liquid chip method (DLCM) compared with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody detection in SLE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective study consecutively enrolled 1349 patients, including 698 with SLE and 651 with other autoimmune diseases at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected using IIF (EUROIMMUN, Luebeck, Germany), CLIA (YHLO, Shenzhen, China) and DLCM (Livzon, Zhuhai, China). The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of each method and combination were compared at the recommended manufacturer cut-offs. The agreement between methods and the association between antibody levels and clinical characteristics including disease activity, complement levels and organ involvement were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods exhibited high specificity, while IIF performed best (98.5%), significantly greater than CLIA (96.3%) and DLCM (96.6%) (p < 0.05). CLIA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (48.1%), outperforming IIF (36.0%) and DLCM (41.4%) (p<0.001). Cohen's kappa indicated substantial positive agreement between DLCM and CLIA (κ=0.67), and moderate agreement between IIF and the other methods (κ=0.52-0.55). Combining IIF with DLCM or CLIA improved diagnosis performance, with IIF+CLIA achieving the highest sensitivity (54.0%), accuracy (74.1%) and AUC (0.75). Moreover, anti-dsDNA positivity was strongly associated with lower complement levels (C3: 0.71 vs 0.90 g/L in DLCM+ vs DLCM-, p<0.001) and moderate-severe disease activity (65.0% DLCM positive). DLCM uniquely predicted musculoskeletal involvement (55.3% vs 44.7%, p<0.01). However, the diagnostic performance for renal involvement was limited (sensitivity 46.9%, specificity 56.3%, AUC=0.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DLCM demonstrated substantial agreement with CLIA and held potential for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. A multiassay strategy, using a sensitive assay like CLIA or DLCM for initial screening and a highly specific assay like IIF for confirmation, optimises diagnostic performance for anti-dsDNA antibody detection in SLE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lupus Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12265827/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lupus Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2025-001608\",\"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-2025-001608","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:本研究旨在评价数字液体芯片法(DLCM)与间接免疫荧光法(IIF)和化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)在SLE抗双链DNA (dsDNA)抗体检测中的诊断性能。方法:回顾性研究连续纳入1349例患者,其中北京协和医院SLE患者698例,其他自身免疫性疾病患者651例。采用IIF (EUROIMMUN, Luebeck,德国)、CLIA (YHLO,中国深圳)和DLCM (Livzon,中国珠海)检测抗dsdna抗体。在推荐的生产厂家截止点比较各方法和组合的灵敏度、特异度和曲线下面积(AUC)。方法之间的一致性以及抗体水平与临床特征(包括疾病活动性、补体水平和器官受累)之间的关联也进行了评估。结果:所有方法均表现出高特异性,其中IIF表现最好(98.5%),显著高于CLIA(96.3%)和DLCM (96.6%) (p )。结论:DLCM与CLIA表现出基本一致,具有SLE诊断和监测的潜力。多分析策略,使用CLIA或DLCM等敏感分析进行初始筛选,使用IIF等高度特异性分析进行确认,优化SLE抗dsdna抗体检测的诊断性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical evaluation of the novel digital liquid chip method for anti-dsDNA detection in SLE.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the digital liquid chip method (DLCM) compared with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody detection in SLE.

Methods: The retrospective study consecutively enrolled 1349 patients, including 698 with SLE and 651 with other autoimmune diseases at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected using IIF (EUROIMMUN, Luebeck, Germany), CLIA (YHLO, Shenzhen, China) and DLCM (Livzon, Zhuhai, China). The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of each method and combination were compared at the recommended manufacturer cut-offs. The agreement between methods and the association between antibody levels and clinical characteristics including disease activity, complement levels and organ involvement were also evaluated.

Results: All methods exhibited high specificity, while IIF performed best (98.5%), significantly greater than CLIA (96.3%) and DLCM (96.6%) (p < 0.05). CLIA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (48.1%), outperforming IIF (36.0%) and DLCM (41.4%) (p<0.001). Cohen's kappa indicated substantial positive agreement between DLCM and CLIA (κ=0.67), and moderate agreement between IIF and the other methods (κ=0.52-0.55). Combining IIF with DLCM or CLIA improved diagnosis performance, with IIF+CLIA achieving the highest sensitivity (54.0%), accuracy (74.1%) and AUC (0.75). Moreover, anti-dsDNA positivity was strongly associated with lower complement levels (C3: 0.71 vs 0.90 g/L in DLCM+ vs DLCM-, p<0.001) and moderate-severe disease activity (65.0% DLCM positive). DLCM uniquely predicted musculoskeletal involvement (55.3% vs 44.7%, p<0.01). However, the diagnostic performance for renal involvement was limited (sensitivity 46.9%, specificity 56.3%, AUC=0.52).

Conclusions: DLCM demonstrated substantial agreement with CLIA and held potential for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. A multiassay strategy, using a sensitive assay like CLIA or DLCM for initial screening and a highly specific assay like IIF for confirmation, optimises diagnostic performance for anti-dsDNA antibody detection in 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信