ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2025
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • 2020-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1473

Comparison of Three Different Double-Stranded DNA Antibody Assays in the Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Anika Morgado1, Sowmika Rao2, Lili Tao1 and Narender Annapureddy3, 1Vanderbilt University Medical centre, Nashville, 2Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, 3Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2025

Keywords: 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: Monday, October 27, 2025

Title: (1467–1516) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus – Diagnosis, Manifestations, & Outcomes Poster II

Session Type: Poster Session B

Session Time: 10:30AM-12:30PM

Background/Purpose: Double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are among the most specific biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). They are associated with disease activity and are incorporated into widely accepted lupus activity indices. Additionally, dsDNA antibody titers have been linked to lupus nephritis, with improvements in titers serving as important predictors of renal response. However, serologic testing for these antibodies has limitations, as antibody positivity does not always correlate with clinical SLE. Several assays are available for detecting dsDNA antibodies in serum, including the ZEUS dsDNA enzyme-linked immunosorbent semi-quantitative assay, the Bio-Rad Anti-dsDNA semi-quantitative enzyme immunoassay, and the BioPlex 2200 multiplex flow immunoassay. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of these three assays to better elucidate their clinical utility in diagnosing SLE.

Methods: A total of 78 cross-sectional serum samples from patients seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between November 2024 and April 2025 were analyzed using the three dsDNA antibody assays. Among these, 36 patients had a diagnosis of SLE, of whom 26 had a SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score greater than zero (excluding points for dsDNA positivity). The remaining samples were from patients without SLE. Concordance rates between the assays were calculated, and the sensitivity and specificity of each assay, as well as combinations of assays, were assessed. Equivocal or indeterminate results were considered negative for the purposes of this analysis.

Results: The concordance rate between the Bio-Rad and BioPlex 2200 assays was 73.3%, between ZEUS and Bio-Rad was 67.6%, and between ZEUS and BioPlex 2200 was 78.5%. The Bio-Rad assay had the highest sensitivity at 75%, but the lowest specificity at 80.9%. The ZEUS and BioPlex 2200 assays demonstrated high specificity at 92.9% and 94.5%, respectively, though their sensitivity was lower at 52.9% and 46.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of a combination of these assays is depicted in Figure 1.

Conclusion: The performance of the three dsDNA antibody assays varied considerably. Concordance among the assays was suboptimal, and no single assay achieved both high sensitivity and specificity. These findings also indicate that using a combination of assays, for example through sequential testing, unfortunately does not significantly improve sensitivity or specificity of these tests. Ultimately, the results of this study suggest that existing assays, while useful adjuncts in assisting with the diagnosis of SLE, should continue to be interpreted with caution without corresponding clinical correlation given existing limitations in their diagnostic accuracy.

Supporting image 1


Disclosures: A. Morgado: None; S. Rao: None; L. Tao: None; N. Annapureddy: AstraZeneca, 1, GlaxoSmithKlein(GSK), 2.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Morgado A, Rao S, Tao L, Annapureddy N. Comparison of Three Different Double-Stranded DNA Antibody Assays in the Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2025; 77 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparison-of-three-different-double-stranded-dna-antibody-assays-in-the-diagnosis-of-systemic-lupus-erythematosus/. 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 ACR Convergence 2025

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparison-of-three-different-double-stranded-dna-antibody-assays-in-the-diagnosis-of-systemic-lupus-erythematosus/

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 »

Embargo Policy

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 CT on October 25. 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