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: 1392

Clinical Correlation with Anti Double Stranded Deoxyribonucleic Acid Via Enzyme Linked Immunoassay Versus Multiplex Immunoassay

Megan L. Krause1, Melissa R. Snyder2, Cynthia S. Crowson3, Abigail B. Green3 and Kevin G. Moder4, 1Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 22Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 3Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 4Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Meeting: 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: anti-dsDNA, Lupus nephritis, serologic tests 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

Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Clinical Aspects

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: In systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antibodies to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) are utilized for disease classification and assessment of activity. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and multiplex immunoassays (MIAs) are frequently used. However, anti-dsDNA antibody assays are not well-standardized with previously reported low concordance rates. In this study, clinical factors and laboratory data were evaluated for their association with anti-dsDNA antibody testing performed by EIA and MIA.

Methods: Patients from a single institution (n=102) underwent anti-dsDNA antibody testing by EIA (INOVA Diagnostics) and MIA (BioRad Laboratories). Clinical diagnoses, SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI), medication exposure, and laboratory data (serologies, complement values, and inflammatory markers) were abstracted. Qualitative concordance between the two methods was defined as both methods being classified as “negative” or “positive” according to the manufacturer’s recommended reference ranges. Discordance was defined as one method having different categorization than the other, “positive,” “borderline/indeterminate,” or “negative.”

Results: Within the total cohort, 35% and 44% of patients were positive for anti-dsDNA antibodies by EIA and MIA, respectively. Further, 54 had a diagnosis of definite, probable, or cutaneous SLE with 63% positive by MIA and 50% by EIA. In addition, only 6% of these patients had negative concordance, while 37% demonstrated positive concordance (p=0.02). Of those negative by both methods, none had lupus nephritis. In patients with lupus nephritis, 35% demonstrated positive concordance. The remaining demonstrated discordance with a higher qualitative value of MIA in 52% compared to 13% with EIA higher (p=0.14). The mean SLEDAI score calculated without the anti-dsDNA value was 3.3 in patients with negative concordance and 7.7 with positive concordance. In comparison, patients with discordant higher MIA had a mean SLEDAI score of 5.9 compared to 2.9 in patients with higher EIA (p=0.1). No patients with negative concordance had low complement values. In contrast, in patients who were positive by both methods, a low C3 or C4 was observed in 46% (p<0.01) and 62% (p=0.01), respectively. Of patients with positive concordance, 53% were positive for anti-SS-A antibodies and anti-RNP antibodies compared to 8% and 23% of patients with negative concordance, respectively. In patients with positive MIA, 80% were currently on at least one medication for SLE, compared to 37% with negative and 39% with borderline MIA results (p<0.01). In patients with positive MIA, they were more likely to have been treated with cyclophosphamide and hydroxychloroquine. In contrast, 73% of patients with positive EIA were currently on at least one medication for SLE compared to 43% and 63% of patients with negative or borderline results (p=0.09).

Conclusion: The association between clinical factors and anti-dsDNA antibodies may be determined, in part, by the specific methodology. Further clarification of these relationships could assist with interpretation of anti-dsDNA antibody results as well as choice of a method for a specific clinical scenario.


Disclosure:

M. L. Krause,
None;

M. R. Snyder,

Bio-Rad Laboratories,

5,

Inova Diagnostics, Inc.,

5;

C. S. Crowson,
None;

A. B. Green,
None;

K. G. Moder,
None.

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

« Back to 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/clinical-correlation-with-anti-double-stranded-deoxyribonucleic-acid-via-enzyme-linked-immunoassay-versus-multiplex-immunoassay/

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