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: 1341

Choosing Not so Wisely: The Tale of Antinuclear Antibody Testing

Tejas Sheth1 and David Alcid2, 1Rheumatology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine / Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, 2Internal Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine / St Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ

Meeting: 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: ANA and health care cost

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Title: Quality Measures and Quality of Care

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose

Choosing Wisely campaign aims to promote evidence based care that is truly necessary and not duplicative. ACR has furnished guidelines for use of ANA and ANA subserologies (ANAS)1: First, repeat testing of ANA is not indicated in patients with established diagnosis of SLE. Second, ANAS should not be ordered along with initial ANA testing. Third, ANA should not be used as a screening test in patients with nonspecific symptoms. The study objective was to identify occasions where ANA testing does not reflect high-value, cost-conscious care.

Methods

All patients having ANA test done at St Peter’s Hospital lab from 4/1/2012 to 3/31/2014 were included. Retrospective chart review was done for demographics, indication of testing and outcomes. Inferential analysis and logistic regression were done by SAS 9.0.

Results

Total 851 patient encounters were found with mean age of 46.9 years and M:F ratio of 1:3.3. In 91 encounters, ANA testing was done despite a history of SLE. In 223 encounters, ANAS were ordered along with initial ANA. Of 223 ANAS ordered, only 15 were positive; all of which had positive ANA results. Female patients (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.86-4.59) and those with history of autoimmune disease (AID) (OR 6.76, 95% CI 4.37-10.44) were more likely to have a positive ANA result. Patients with history of AID (OR 7.87, 95% CI 1.72-35.95) and those with a positive ANA results (p<0.001) were more likely to have positive ANAS. Age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.01) and location of patient (p=0.48) did not show association with ANA results. ANA testing ordered in family medicine, pediatrics and gastroenterology were more likely to have negative results (OR 2.61, 2.3 and 5.04 respectively) as compared to rheumatology. Follow up visits were available in 587 encounters; on 12 occasions (2.07%) a positive ANA result translated in a change in management.

Conclusion

A significant amount of clinically done ANA testing does not reflect high value care and is associated with significant economic burden (>150,000 USD/yr).

Reference

1.      Yazdany J et al. Arthritis care & research 2013;65:329-39.

Table 1: ANA testing behavior of different specialties in patients with history of SLE.

Table 2: ANAS testing behavior of different specialties along with initial ANA testing.

Table 3: Clinical situations where ANA testing does not reflect high-value care

 


Disclosure:

T. Sheth,
None;

D. Alcid,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/choosing-not-so-wisely-the-tale-of-antinuclear-antibody-testing/

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