ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 781

Anti-Nucleosome Antibodies Versus Anti-DNA Antibodies in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Activity of Systemic Lupus Erytematosus

Helena Borrell Paños1, Javier Narváez2, Jordi Bas3, Eulàlia Armengol1, Maria Aparicio1, Maria Pascual1, Mercè López de Recalde1 and Joan Miquel Nolla1, 1Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain, 2Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain, 3Immunology Department. Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain

Meeting: 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 29, 2015

Keywords: Anti-DNA, diagnosis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 8, 2015

Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - Clinical Aspects and Treatment Poster Session I

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose:

Recently, the study of anti-nucleosome antibodies (ANUCs) has been suggested that they may be useful in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and in the monitoring of disease activity.

Our objective was to compare the diagnostic performance of ANUCs versus anti-nDNA in the diagnosis of SLE and analyze their correlation with markers of disease activity. 

Methods:

ANUCs and anti-nDNA were prospectively determined in 122 patients with SLE (SLICC 2012 criteria) and 136 patients without the disease (control population). ANUC determination was determined using a dot-blot + ELISA and anti-nDNA using FEIA + IFI. For each of the antibodies, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic accuracy were calculated for the SLE diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated according to the following formula: (true positives + true negatives) / (true positives + true negatives + false positives + false negatives).

The correlation of the ANUC titer with different markers of SLE activity (SLEDAI 2K, anti-nDNA antibody titer, lymphocyte count, C3 and C4 complement fractions, ESR and C reactive protein) was analyzed using a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. 

Results:

In the 122 patients with SLE, 80 (66%) were ANUC positive and 83 (68%) were anti-nDNA positive: 62 (51%) patients were ANUC and anti-nDNA positive, 18 (15%) were ANUC positive/anti-nDNA negative, 21 (17%) were ANUC negative/anti-nDNA positive, and 21 (17%) were ANUC and anti-nDNA negative. 

Eleven (8%) patients in the control population were anti-nDNA positive, and 39 (29%) control patients were ANUC positive. Patients from the control population with positive ANUC had psoriasis (many of them were treated with anti-TNF therapy), infections (pneumonia, HCV, or HIV infection), or an autoimmune disease (pemphigus, Crohn’s disease, glomerulonephritis associated with ANCA, primary anti-phospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, or autoimmune hepatitis).

The following table shows the diagnostic value of both antibodies:

ANUC Anti-DNAn
Sensitivity 66% 68%
Specificity 71% 91%
PPV 67% 88%
NPV 70% 76%
LH + 2.30 8.4
LH –  0.47 0.34
Accuracy 0.686 0.806

The ANUC titer was significantly correlated with the SLEDAI-2K score (r = 0.425, p = 0.031), anti-nDNA titer (r = 0.603, p = 0.001), the number of lymphocytes (r = -0.410; p = 0.038), and ESR (r = 0.414, p = 0.036). No statistically significant correlation was observed with levels of complement or CRP. 

Conclusion:

ANUCs exhibit similar sensitivity as anti-nDNA for SLE diagnosis but a lower specificity. Therefore, the presence of ANUCs does not appear to increase diagnostic accuracy.

A simultaneous determination of ANUCs and nDNA increases the diagnostic yield, whereas ANUCs are useful in diagnosing disease in anti-nDNA negative patients.

The ANUC titer was positively correlated with disease activity and can therefore be considered a complementary marker in monitoring these patients


Disclosure: H. Borrell Paños, None; J. Narváez, None; J. Bas, None; E. Armengol, None; M. Aparicio, None; M. Pascual, None; M. López de Recalde, None; J. M. Nolla, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Borrell Paños H, Narváez J, Bas J, Armengol E, Aparicio M, Pascual M, López de Recalde M, Nolla JM. Anti-Nucleosome Antibodies Versus Anti-DNA Antibodies in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Activity of Systemic Lupus Erytematosus [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015; 67 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/anti-nucleosome-antibodies-versus-anti-dna-antibodies-in-the-diagnosis-and-monitoring-of-activity-of-systemic-lupus-erytematosus/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/anti-nucleosome-antibodies-versus-anti-dna-antibodies-in-the-diagnosis-and-monitoring-of-activity-of-systemic-lupus-erytematosus/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology