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: 1426

The Clinical Relevance of a “False Negative” Enzyme Linked Immunoassay: Which Antinuclear Antibody Screening Test Is Preferred by Rheumatologists in an Integrated Health System?

Rachita Bansal1, David Bulbin2, Alfred E. Denio3, Sandi Kelsey4 and Harold Harrison4, 1Dept of Rheumatology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, 2Dept of General Internal Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, 3Dept of Rheumatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, 4Dept of Pathology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA

Meeting: 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Enzyme-Linked Immunoabsorbant Assays (ELISA) and antinuclear antibodies (ANA)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Clinical Aspects

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose:

 Historically, Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA) methodology has been the gold standard for ANA screening. Most clinical laboratories in recent years utilize the Enzyme Linked Immunoassay (ELISA) to screen for ANA rather than IFA as ELISA is automated and less expensive. Studies have suggested the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods are comparable but most of these studies were retrospective and not done in populations of patients referred to rheumatologists. There has been concern among rheumatologists that there may be a high “false negative” rate for ELISA when compared to IFA, potentially affecting a rheumatologist’s ability to diagnose patients with connective tissue disorders. We studied the incidence and clinical relevance of a negative ANA by ELISA when the IFA is positive and when ordered by a rheumatologist.

Methods:

 We conducted a prospective study in a 12 person integrated health system rheumatology practice to determine the rate of “false negative” ANA by ELISA. 200 consecutive negative ELISA ANA’s ordered by rheumatologists were subsequently reanalyzed with IFA. We reviewed medical records of these patients and surveyed their rheumatologists regarding the clinical relevance of the positive IFA ANA finding for each patient identified. After their experience with the “false negative” ELISA and after providing the rheumatologists with the lab’s comparative costs of the 2 methodologies, their opinion about the most cost effective ANA screening strategy was solicited.

Results:

Of 200 consecutive ELISA negative ANA’s ordered by rheumatologists reanalyzed using IFA, 15% were positive by IFA. Six% had titers of 1:160 or greater. One was 1:10240. The rheumatologist survey demonstrated that of the 30 patients with false negative ANA by ELISA, the clinical suspicion of an underlying connective tissue disorder remained medium or high in 17 despite the negative ANA. In 8 patients, the clinical suspicion for a connective tissue disorder increased following the finding of a positive ANA by IFA and in 4 patients led to additional testing or start of treatment for a connective tissue disorder. The surveyed rheumatologists by a large majority felt that the abnormal ANA cut off titer should remain 1:160. After experience with each “false negative” ELISA patient and after being provided with cost differences for the IFA and ELISA methodologies, the rheumatologists by a slim majority (14 to 13) recommended continuation of the current lab’s practice of screening all ANAs with ELISA rather than the option of screening rheumatology ordered ANAs with IFA (added lab cost $3,323.50/yr.) No one felt the entire system’s ANAs screening should be done by IFA (added cost to lab $33,465.20/yr.)

Conclusion:

Use of IFA rather than ELISA as initial screening ANA test would rarely change a rheumatologist’s patient management decisions. With knowledge of the “false negative” ELISA rate, the system’s cost differences between the ELISA and IFA, and experience with their own patients who have had a “false negative”, rheumatologists in an integrated health system prefer the ELISA methodology over IFA as initial ANA screen.


Disclosure:

R. Bansal,
None;

D. Bulbin,
None;

A. E. Denio,
None;

S. Kelsey,
None;

H. Harrison,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-clinical-relevance-of-a-false-negative-enzyme-linked-immunoassay-which-antinuclear-antibody-screening-test-is-preferred-by-rheumatologists-in-an-integrated-health-system/

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